Christopher J. Lindsay

Film reviews, mystery novel reviews, short films, short stories

Recent Posts

  • The Moral Argument Against Fragranced Products

    fragrance sign

    In the TV series, The X Files, Dana Skully says to Fox Mulder: “I have identified the effect. I am still looking for the cause.”1 When something happens (an effect) it can often be a mystery to determine why it happened (the cause). For many effects, there can be more than one cause. One cause and effect relationship many people are unaware of is how fragranced consumer products can trigger health problems—including migraine headaches and asthma attacks—in a significant percentage of the population.2 If products containing fragrance are proven to cause harm to others, then consumers have a moral responsibility not to use these products in public.

    Countless home cleaning and personal care products have fragrance added to them. These products include perfumes, colognes, aftershaves, laundry detergents, fabric softeners, air fresheners, deodorants, and soaps.3 In 2010, the Environmental Working Group did laboratory tests and found that “the average fragrance product tested contained 14 secret chemicals.”4 Fragrance companies do not have to list the chemicals on the product label due to trade secret protections.5 The combined ingredients are identified as “fragrance” or “parfum.”6 According to the International Fragrance Association, there are 3,999 different ingredients (both natural and synthetic) used in making fragrance.7

    Fragranced consumer products can harm a person’s health. A 2016 Australian study of more than 1,000 people found that 33 per cent of respondents reported health problems after exposure to such products.8 Negative effects included “migraine headaches, asthma attacks, contact dermatitis, respiratory difficulties, and mucosal symptoms.”9 Nearly eight per cent of respondents had lost work days in the past year because they were exposed to fragrance.10 Exactly why fragrance can trigger health problems is not fully understood by scientists, but the effects are real.

    If an individual uses a fragranced consumer product at work (or in other public places), other people may be negatively impacted. Even though it is legal to use these products in public, just because something is legal does not make it moral. It is a universal moral principle that no one should intentionally harm an innocent person.11 If this principle is true, then it is morally wrong to use fragranced products in public because doing so will cause other people pain and suffering.

    A lot of suffering in this world is unavoidable; however, the pain and suffering caused by fragrance is 100 per cent preventable. Instead of buying products with fragrance, consumers can buy brands that are labelled fragrance-free. (Fragrance-free means the product has no added fragrance, while unscented means it contains a fragrance that masks the odor caused by other chemical ingredients.12) Fragrance-free products are often higher in price, but the more people who buy them, the more corporations (and small businesses) will produce them, and the more alternatives there will be for consumers.

    Notes

    1. The X Files, “Teliko.” Directed by Jim Charleston. Written by Howard Gordon. Fox, October 18, 1996. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751214/
    2. Anne Steinemann, “Health and societal effects from exposure to fragranced consumer products.” Preventative Medicine Reports Vol 5 (2017): 45, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5122698/
    3. “Fragrances in Cosmetics,” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, December 29, 2015, https://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ProductsIngredients/Ingredients/ucm388821.htm
    4. Heather Sarantis et al., “Not So Sexy: The Health Risks of Secret Chemicals in Fragrance,” Environmental Working Group, May 2, 2010, 3, https://www.ewg.org/research/not-so-sexy
    5. “Cosmetic Labelling Guide,” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, accessed October 31, 2017, 23, https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Cosmetics/Labeling/UCM391202.pdf
    6. Clare Pain, “Something in the air: From scented candles to cleaning products, our lives have become fragranced like never before. What’s the effect on our health.” New Scientist 234 No. 3129 (2017): 34-37.
    7. “Ingredients,” International Fragrance Association, http://www.ifraorg.org/en-us/ingredients#.WCDfWRIrJmB
    8. Steinemann, “Health and societal effects,” 45.
    9. Ibid.
    10. Steinemann, “Health and societal effects,” 46.
    11. Nigel Warburton, “The Harm Principle: How to live your life the way you want to,” BBC Radio 4, 2:00, posted November 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9IM3ZKNMCk
    12. Jessica Chia, “The Truth About ‘Fragrance-Free’ Products,” Prevention, January 23, 2014, https://www.prevention.com/beauty/skin-care/truth-about-fragrance-free-products

  • Why Captured Terrorists Can Be Detained Indefinitely

    guantanamoA controversial practice of the U.S. government is indefinite detention: “detaining an arrested person by a national government or law enforcement agency without a trial.”1 Many people believe that if a terrorist suspect is captured, the individual should be charged and tried in a civilian court. However, when a member of a terrorist organization is detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, whether or not they have committed a crime is irrelevant. Like an enemy soldier captured during a war, they can be detained indefinitely without trial.

    It is not illegal to capture enemy soldiers during a war and detain them. As Edwin Meese III, former Attorney General of the United States, points out, “Under the law of armed conflict, also called the law of war, engaging the enemy includes killing or capturing the enemy. This age-old principle — detention of the enemy during wartime for the duration of hostilities — is just as applicable to al Qaeda as it was to Nazi POWs in World War II or other enemies in previous wars.”2

    During World War II, captured German soldiers were held in prison camps. By the end of the war, “there were 425,000 enemy prisoners … throughout the United States.”3 Although German POWs were sometimes mistreated, holding them prisoner was legal under the 1929 Geneva Convention, and is still legal today.4 After the war, “former POWs were returned to Europe at the rate of 50,000 a month.”5 Detaining a member of a terrorist organization is equivalent to holding a German soldier in a U.S. prison camp during World War II. German soldiers were held prisoner not as punishment, but to prevent them from returning to the battlefield and killing American soldiers. Similarly, detaining captured terrorists is necessary to prevent them from killing soldiers and civilians.

    A second reason why terrorists should be detained is to interrogate them. Gaining valuable intelligence from the enemy is an important strategy in preventing future terrorist attacks, and winning the war on terror. If captured terrorists stand trial and are sentenced to prison, they can no longer be interrogated.

    Many people are opposed to indefinite detention because they believe terrorists should be treated the same as civilians. Instead of detention, they want a terrorist suspect to stand trial in a civilian court. The U.S. constitution prevents a civilian from being detained indefinitely. According to the Sixth Amendment, “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.”6 However, this right does not apply to a member of a terrorist organization.

    Terrorists are engaged in an illegal war against the United States. They are not civilians; they are “enemy combatants” who do not follow the rules of war. An enemy combatant is a “captured fighter in a war who is not entitled to prisoner of war status because he … does not meet the definition of a lawful combatant as established by the Geneva Convention.”7 Whereas a civilian can only be sent to prison if they are proven guilty of a crime, a terrorist can be detained not only for their past actions, but for the threat they pose to innocent people. The right of the U.S. government to detain terrorists indefinitely was upheld in a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court Ruling. The court “recognized that detaining individuals captured while fighting against the United States in Afghanistan for the duration of that conflict was a fundamental and accepted incident to war.”8

    The danger in the US. government detaining terrorist suspects is the military may abuse its power and detain innocent people. During World War II, German soldiers who were captured and detained were easily identified by their uniforms. Given that captured terrorists wear no uniforms, there must be due process to prove that they are terrorists. According to the Fourteenth Amendment, no State can “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”9

    Terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have due process rights.10 Additionally, in a 2008 Supreme Court ruling, they received “the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus.”11 In the U.S legal system, “a writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee before the court to determine if the person’s imprisonment or detention is lawful.”12 The Supreme Court ruled that detainees “have the right to challenge their detentions in federal court.”13

    Although terrorist suspects now have the right to habeas corpus, this does not prevent the U.S. government from detaining them indefinitely. Proving their membership (or involvement) in a terrorist organization is the only requirement for detention, and they do not need to be charged with a crime. When World War II came to an end, many Nazis stood trial for their crimes in military courts.14 Similarly, terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, can face justice (in a civilian or military court) when the war against the terrorist organization they belong to is over.

    Notes

    1. US Legal, s.v. “Indefinite Detention,” accessed October 24, 2017, http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/indefinite-detention/
    2. Edwin Meese III, “Guantanamo Bay prison is necessary,” CNN, January 11, 2012, http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/11/opinion/meese-gitmo/index.html
    3. Arnold P. Krammer, “German Prisoners of War,” Texas State Historical Association, accessed October 25, 2017, https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qug01
    4. “Prisoners of war and detainees protected under international humanitarian law,” International Committee of the Red Cross, October 29, 2010, https://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/protected-persons/prisoners-war/overview-detainees-protected-persons.htm
    5. Krammer, “German Prisoners of War, Texas State Historical Association.
    6. “Sixth Amendment – U.S. Constitution,” Find Law, accessed June 6, 2016, http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment6.html
    7. West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, s.v. “Enemy Combatant,” accessed October 25, 2017, https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/enemy+combatant
    8. “Boumediene et al. v. Bush, President of the United States, et al.,” Supreme Court of the United States, 1, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/06-1195P.ZS
    9. “Fourteenth Amendment – U.S. Constitution,” Find Law, accessed June 6, 2016, http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14.html
    10. “Boumediene et al. v. Bush,” Supreme Court of the United States, 2.
    11. “Boumediene et al. v. Bush,” Supreme Court of the United States, 3.
    12. Legal Information Institute, s.v. “Habeas Corpus,” accessed October 25, 2017, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus
    13. Bill Mears, “Justices: Gitmo detainees can challenge detention in U.S. courts,” CNN, June 12, 2008, http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/12/scotus/index.html
    14. Holocost Encylopedia, s.v. “International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg,” accessed October 25, 2017, https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007069