Liberals Go to the Movies

I guess Kinsella and Gritchick went on a date last night and saw The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. They were both outraged that a movie rated 18A was attended by children under 18. Even though 18A means 18 Accompaniment - Persons under 18 years of age must be accompanied by an adult, and Ontario hasn't followed the leads of Manitoba or the maritimes in banning outright children under 14 (Better get your homeboy, Dalton, on that, Warren!), and the parents therefore made a legal choice, both Kinsella and Gritchick felt more than justified complaining to management about other parents' choices. You see, their morality was better than the parents of those poor children.

That's the real story and the real difference between Liberals and, well, human beings. You see, most human beings just want to be left alone to live their lives as they wish but Liberals, ahhh, Liberals! they just know better than you and me and aren't afraid to tell anyone and everyone just that. And if you don't like what our Liberal betters believe they have no compunction about legislating it, or in the case of Kinsella, flashing whatever badge of authority he has. In the past he has used his influence with the McGunity government to intimidate a local school administration and in this case he used his 'journalistic credentials' to threaten the management of the theatre.

Liberals will tell you they believe in choice. What they mean is they believe you are allowed to make the same choices they do, the choices they approve. Don't choose to be a stay-at-home-mom and don't take your kids to a scary movie.

As a final note Gritchick titled her post "Some People Should not Have Children". Don't laugh, it's not a personal opinion, it's a threat. Child licensing and registration coming to a province near you!

A Question Regarding the Youth Criminal Justice System

I have a question regarding the youth criminal justice system. Do we treat youth differently because they may not be capable of fully understanding the law or their culpability or perhaps because they simply are not as capable of criminal intent as an adult?

I would agree that children under a certain age are not capable of understanding the consequences of their actions and that as children get older we can, and should, apply more responsibility for their actions. We say that once a child reaches eighteen years of age they are capable of taking full responsibility for their actions.

It seems reasonable that taking a teenager and putting him or her in prison with adults is a bad idea. I would agree that most young offenders have a greater chance of rehabilitation, as well. So coupling diminished capacity with lesser or alternate sentencing makes sense.

Where I grow concerned is when an adult is charged under the YCJA for crimes committed when they were underage. If a child is considered less culpable because they cannot fully understand their crime why do we not expect that child, when they reach an age where they do understand the consequences of their actions, to reflect on their crime and act in a manner consistent with that greater understanding?

To me, when a child becomes an adult there should be a limit on how long they have to come forward and accept responsibility for their actions. For serious crimes such as murder, sexual assault, or crimes involving violence or threats with weapons I think an adult should make the choice to come forward and deal with their actions. If they fail to accept, as an adult, that their actions as a child require some justice then I would put to you that an adult has made a decision and that they should be held to an adult standard.

Simply put, when a 35 year old man has his name protected and is prosecuted as if he were still a minor simply because the crimes were committed when he was a minor, I feel justice is perverted. What adult does not know that their actions as a minor were wrong?

I believe parliament should amend the YCJA or its successor legislation requiring adults who have committed serious offences as minors to come forward by their 22^nd birthday and take responsibility for those actions. If they fail to do so parliament should ensure that the law treats these people as the adults they are and require that they accept the consequences of their adult decisions. I think four years is enough to reasonably reflect on one’s actions as a child.

Federal Court Rules on the CWB

Apparently legislatures CAN restrict future legislatures in their ability to change laws.

From the Ruling:

At paragraph 34 of the Producer Car Shippers argument, attention
is directed to the following passages from Professor Hogg’s text, Constitutional Law of Canada, (Carswell, Toronto, 5th ed, 2007):

Would the Parliament or a Legislature be bound by self-imposed
rules as to the “manner and form” in which statutes were to be
enacted? The answer, in my view, is yes.
[…]
Thus, while the federal Parliament or a provincial Legislature cannot
bind itself as to the substance of future legislation, it can bind itself as
to the manner and form of future legislation.
[…]
It seems implausible that a legislative body should be disabled from
making changes to its present structure and procedures. Moreover,
the case-law, while not conclusive, tends to support the validity of
self-imposed manner and form requirements.

With this ruling in mind I propose the following amendment to Bill C-19 be moved in the Senate:

The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill that would change the firearms act in whole or in part unless:

(a) the Minister has consulted with firearm owners about the amendments; and

(b) gun owners have voted in favour of the amendments, the voting process having been determined by the Minister.

Similar amendments should be made to every bill the government passes. Perhaps they could introduce a bill stating that no minister shall introduce any bill to amend anything without consulting me and getting me to vote in favour. It seems reasonable enough, it's not a restriction on what laws can be passed it's only a statement on the "manner and form" those changes need to take.

Kai Nagata Speaks

Here it is, the story Kai Nagata wanted to write, the truth he wanted to tell to power but couldn't. What a fucking pile of leftist symbol-crap. Ooo, he served what sounds like a few months in the reserves! Me too! What I don't understand and I guess I never will is why people like Kai think the military is some left wing hug club for peacekeepers? Or why he and other people like the first Canadian female combat soldier, Heather Erxleben, join up thinking it's the UN's private police force? This asshole , who accepted the pay and I can only assume took the oath, counseled another soldier not to go to Afghanistan! What a luxury to be a reservist where such service is voluntary. He and his fellow Montreal reservists were shocked, shocked I tell you, to find out that peacekeeping wasn't in the cards anymore. He appears even more shocked that the military has **gasp** tanks and fighter planes!

Kai Nagata is typical of the Liberal party's "love" of the military. They don't want a fighting force, they want unarmed peacekeepers who can do double duty on snow removal or sandbag duty. Well, Kai, this ex-reservist says fuck you and your leftist sensibilities. The Army is a fighting force and that's what I was proud to be part of.

Mt. Allison Fine Arts Building

It seems the Board at Mt. Allison College thinks tearing down a building commissioned as a war memorial in favour of a building for the fine and performing arts is a good idea. I wonder if these fellows would agree.

Castle Doctrine?

This post at James Morton’s blog has me both happy and terribly confused. It seems to say that if a person is attacked in their home they are under no obligation to retreat. That means they can defend themselves in their home but still must retreat before attack outside the home. That aside, what constitutes and assault in your house and what is allowed as defence?

If a burglar breaks into my home, is that an assault on me? I would guess probably not. What if the burglar announces “I’m non-violent, I’m just stealing your TV!” do I have to let him? If not, then what can I do to stop him? I am under the impression that I am allowed to use reasonable force to protect my property and that “reasonable force” means an escalation of force as necessary, but that it is not reasonable to use deadly force to defend property. So, must I start out with a verbal warning, then bare hands, then a baseball bat? If I attempt to stop the thief from stealing my stuff and he resists is that an assault on me? The problem with that is the thief is unlikely to use reasonable force himself; he would more likely use his most violent weapon immediately in order to win. I honestly believe that, so does that mean I reasonably believe my life is in danger and do I now have an obligation to retreat rather than stop a theft in my own home? Or can I still try to stop him from stealing my TV? If you think these are hypotheticals, read this.

And let’s talk about reasonable force. How can a citizen of Canada apply reasonable force when it would appear that the possession of any weapon intended for self-defence is illegal. If I carry a baseball bat in my car expressly for self-defense I am committing a crime. If I carry a baseball bat, glove and ball in my car and just happen to use the bat for self-defence it is perfectly legal. I cannot have pepper spray to protect me from humans but as long as I say it is for defense against dogs I am fine. As for guns, I am barred from owning a gun for self-defence but if I have one for hunting or target shooting I can then use it for self-defence just so long as that wasn’t its intended use. It’s crazy!

So the court of appeal in Ontario says I can defend myself from assault in my house without the obligation to retreat. It still bars most citizens from the means of that defense. It’s a good first step but I hope the Conservative government does come through with a revamp and clarification of self-defence, something more supportive of victims than burlglars.

This is what's wrong with our military...

When the "dedicated public servants" at DND get first billing and the deputy minister is the co-equal of the chief of the defence staff you must know why our military is so screwed up. At least they had the good grace not to picture Richard Warman working hard at his desk as an example to inspire young people to join up.

Jack Layton is Dead

Now is the time for everyone to forget what Jack Layton stood for and to remember the man that he was. I just can't be that much of a hypocrite. Jack Layton was a socialist, a man who believed that the inalienable rights of man were, in fact, alienable. This was a man who believed what is yours was his and what was his was his. I do not care that Jack was a nice guy to have a beer with, or was a decent guy (happy endings in sleazy massage parlours notwithstanding). To me the only difference between Layton and Stalin, Layton and Mao, Layton and Pol Pot was opportunity. I will not celebrate the life of a man who fought to enslave me to his values.

Why Michael J. Murphy is a lucky man...

Isn't it nice to know you can insult a man's religion and not have to worry about a fatwa or how long a Jihadi would torture you while sawing your head off?