Who Was the Prime Minister in 1942?

And what political party did he lead?  Just wondering, because you know, the conservatives are all racists and stuff...

Aboriginal Children Used as Test Subjects

I guess they could have just taken the passengers of the SS St. Louis in and used them...

And the Hypocrisy Rolls On!

It just doesn't get any easier than this.  I mean it's so easy, two posts so close together that absolutely pinpoint the sheer hypocrisy of Warren Kinsella, I may not be able to cash my cheque from CPC headquarters this month.  Ooops, did I say that out loud?

Anyway, in post #1 Mr. Kinsella decries the loss of democracy in Egypt and fears for the radicalization of the Muslim Brotherhood if their democratic aspiration aren't met.  Sure, they're radicalized already, and sure they want to institute a misogynistic and barbaric code of law inspired by their Muslim faith, but that's democracy baby!

And in post #2 Mr Kinsella decries democratic open nominations for Liberal candidates because, well, because he's afraid "...pro-life lobbyists (will) start taking over Liberal riding associations."  How dare they aspire to democratically elect candidates!  They can't go imposing their misogynistic and barbaric religious views, inspired by their Christian faith, just because they win an election. 

Some things are just too important to be left to democracy.  The Liberal party for sure. Egypt?  Not so much.

Maybe There is Another Way, Chris

I send my children to Catholic school here in BC.  I don't do it because I am a practicing Catholic, though I am, nor do I do it because I hate the public system or fear secular teaching.  I do it it because my son gets a more focused education that better meets his needs.  I made a decision based on the educational methods in his local public school and the attitude his teachers displayed towards his "special needs" and what he would receive in the local parish school.  That's my right, my right to decide what is best for my son.

Today I read this article by Chris Selley.  Chris, like so many others, seems to think that Catholic schools should be just like public schools.  He decries the difference in moral teachings in the Catholic Church run schools as unreasonable.

"The problem, as ever, isn’t so much the Catechism that guides Ontario’s Catholic schools, but its total incongruity with modern political life on hot-button questions like gay rights and abortion."

 Well, isn't that exactly the point?  Aren't parents supposed to make the decisions on the moral upbringing of their child?  Is it really the state's job to force children to listen to other opinions?  And maybe it wouldn't be so bad but the judgement so plainly evident in Selley's piece shows that he is quite comfortable using the school to push his version of morality because, I guess, it is congruous with modern political life.

So Selley thinks it's best to remove public funding from Catholic schools in Ontario.  Here in BC my son's school doesn't take the full amount the government is willing to give and the reason is the school doe not want to be beholden to the government lest they start mandating anti-Catholic moral teachings.  When the government pays, the government call the tune, right?  That's what Mr. Selley wants.

So let's assume they do what Selley is espousing and the province of Ontario either removes public funding from Catholic schools or takes them over.  Well, Mr. Selley, there is no such thing as "public" money, only the pooled moneys of a lot of private citizens with a diversity of opinions.  Public schools were intended to educate our children in things like math, and English (or French).  They weren't set up to indoctrinate children into the majority culture.  We tried that and it was called the Indian Residential School system.  It was wrong then and it is wrong now.  Schools should not be used to push any group's agenda, not even Mr. Selley's.

The facts is public schools are there to educate, not indoctrinate, and a publicy funded education is a right in Canada, yet people thousands of children do not receive that publicly funded education.  Any child whose parents would prefer not to be taught the latest social theory emanating from each province's equivalent of OISE can choose to send their child to a private school but they must pay out of pocket as well as pay school taxes.  They do not receive that publicly funded education.  And yet there is a a very simple solution, elegant even, and that is to fund the child and not the system.  Set a standard and basic curriculum any school must teach, one that focuses on education, math, languages, science, and let the schools decide what morality they wish to teach and how much that extra will cost.   You can bet the majority would send their children to the schools Selley likes and some would send them to schools that teach a different morality, and some like me would get to choose the best compromise to meet their child's individual needs.  What a concept.

Can You Identify the Assault Rifle?

What is an "Assault Rifle"?  Do we go by the official definition?

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:^[4][5][6]

• It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
• It must be capable of selective fire;
• It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
• Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
• And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

But it would appear that we don't want to use the official definition.  Nope, most people will just tell me they know one when they see one.  So let's look at this selection of firearms.  Which ones do you call 'assault rifles'?

1. AR 15 Civilian version of the M16. Semi-automatic rifle in .223 – restricted in Canada
2. SVT 40 WWII semi-automatic rifle in 7.62x54R – non-restricted in Canada
3. FN C1A1 (FAL) Canadian semi-automatic military rifle in 7.62 NATO - prohibited in Canada
4. M1 carbine WWII full auto rifle in .30 cal – prohibited in Canada
5. Keltec KSG Pump action shotgun.  Not even a rifle! – non-restriced in Canada
6. Barrett  99 50 Caliber bolt action rifle – non-restricted in Canada
7. Garand  WWII semi-automatic rifle in .308 – non-restricted in Canada
8. SKS  Semi-automatic rifle in 7.62x39 – non-restricted in Canada
9. SKS same rifle as above but in nasty black plastic
10. Rob Arms XCR – modern sporting rifle in .223 – non-restricted in Canada

None of these meet any definition of ‘assault rifle’ .  Are the black or tan ones scarier than the wooden ones?  They shouldn’t be!  Those rifles fire the smallest, lightest round.  If you said any of those guns was an assault rifle I would love to know what criteria you used.

Oh, Those French!

They elect a socialist who promises to punish the rich and, strangely, the greedy rich are moving to Belgium.  Then again, who wouldn't after reading stuff like this:

"We cannot fight poverty if those with the most, and sometimes with a lot, do not show solidarity and a bit of generosity," he added. 

France's Socialist President Francois Hollande, who famously once declared "I don't like the rich", has pledged to tax annual income of more than one million euros per year at 75 percent. 

In reference to Gerard Depardieu, upon moving to Belgium:

Socialist MP Yann Galut called for the actor to be "stripped of his nationality" if he failed to pay his dues in his mother country, saying the law should be changed to enable such a punishment. 

Benoît Hamon, the consumption minister, said the move amounted to giving France "the finger" and was "anti-patriotic".

They have a MINISTER OF CONSUMPTION?????

Or from the "far right":

But Far-Right National Front leader Marine Le Pen said tax exiles like Mr Depardieu wanted to "have their cake and eat it", adding: "All these people general come running back when they have a health problem."  

Where have we heard that before?  I'm looking at you Khadr family!

So there you have it.  The French will tax themselves into the stone age because the entrepreneurial class just doesn't feel the solidarity of their leftist overlords.  Coming soon, travel restrictions, papers please, exit fees, and families as hostages.  Where have we seen that before?

More Defense of a Free and Open Internet

The last week has been full of shock and disgust over the online bullying and subsequent suicide of Amanda Todd.  I have listened to CKNW in Vancouver and heard calls for an end to anonymous Internet posts, Internet licensing, jail time for insensitivity (Why not, Britain does it...) and more laws restricting speech on the Internet.  As sad as Amanda Todd's death was I don't think we can blame the Internet, and more importantly I think a free and open Internet has been extremely beneficial.

And for reasons you just might not believe!

We all hate pedophiles, right?  And it was a perv who talked Amanda Todd into flashing, right?  So how many pedophile rings were busted in the '70s or 80's?  And how many recently?  In the days of polaroids and limited contact between pedophiles how many individuals were caught exploiting children and how many children were saved from their abusers?  And yet today hardly a week goes by that we don't hear of another ring busted or a child found and rescued and all this because pedophiles feel free to post their trophies on the Internet.  How many faces have been unswirled?  How many hotel rooms identified?  Do we think pedophiles didn't abuse children before the Internet existed?

Do we think that the Internet is creating pedophiles?  Like some think it creates neo-Nazi anti-semites?  Sure some argue that the easy availability of child porn exacerbates the problem.  Personally, I doubt seeing a 7 year old sparks an otherwise normal guy to become a pedophile anymore than seeing naked guys sparks gayness.  Certainly some study would be useful but before - BEFORE- we start trying to turn the Internet in to some English tea house of civility.

No, I believe that the very openness of the Internet has helped us enormously.  We can now identify the pedophiles much earlier, we can find the child pornographers, and we can bring justice to them.  That's just one more reason I'd rather a free and open exchange of ideas on the Internet.

It let's us know who the whackos are.

Will BCL file a Police Report?

Isn't it nice for Warren that he can poke fun at the Christian saviour and no one wants to cut his head off?

  Jesus was there to meet Justin, front and centre, and the Liberal leadership candidate didn’t even break into a sweat!

Still, one wonders if anyone will rush to file a police complaint.