Earth Hour... So What Do We Call the Other 8764?

So it's Earth Hour again and I have to decide whether it is worth lighting candles and risking a fire in my house to assuage the guilty consciences of the patrolling greeny vigilantes in my neighbourhood.

Decisions, decisions...

 

 Update:  Hahaaahaaaaa, that's funny!

Things that Never Happen to Me...

Hot teachers "abusing" teenage boys...

Reminds me of this episode of South Park...   Nice

Not Partisan At All...

This article by Jeff Davis shows just how gullible, how lazy, and how easily manipulated the mainstream media is. It unbelievable:

Saskatchewan Tory MP Garry Breitkreuz found himself in hot water Thursday after an Ottawa mother complained he told a Grade 10 class that everyone in Canada should be armed — especially girls.

Dianna Sakisheway wrote a scathing letter to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews this week. Her complaint stems from a speech Breitkreuz — known as the father of the legislation to repeal the long-gun registry — gave during a career day at Canterbury High School on March 7.

"I am outraged at the irresponsible conduct of the federal government in promoting gun violence to schoolchildren," she wrote. "You have gone much too far."

....

Sakisheway told Postmedia News that she is "just a mother" and has no political associations.

.... In her letter, Sakisheway says Breitkreuz clearly told the students that "it should be much easier for Canadians to attain and own a firearm because it is their duty and their right to engage in gun violence."

So let's just check a few things. First, Dianna Sakisheway is non-partisan? Uh huh...

From her Twitter feed:

Jack Layton:Tommy Douglas our 1st leader said Dream no little dreams. They said yes 2 a Cda where anything is possible. No 1 is left behind.

or

Cdn Boat “Tahrir” will sail 2 help end Israel’s illegal siege of #Gaza

But even if you are a moron and can't type a name into Google don't you think a real reporter with even an ounce of common sense would question if Gary Breitkreuz would actually say "it is their duty and their right to engage in gun violence."? Really? Would he call self-defence "gun violence" or is that the interpretation of a political activist? It would make me stop and think before I wrote an article based solely on her word that she is non-partisan and her account of what was said.

Truly another sad day in Canadian journalism.

Open Thread for James Morton's Anonymous Troll

Here ya go, dude, as promised,  prove me a Liberal.

The End Game of the War on Free Speech

Here it is, another couple of feet down the slope.

"A British university student was jailed for 56 days Tuesday after admitting inciting racial hatred by posting offensive comments on Twitter following the collapse of a professional soccer player on live television. ....

Sentencing the student, district judge John Charles said there was "no alternative" to an immediate prison sentence, as when Mr. Muamba collapsed "it was not the football world who was praying for him... everybody was praying for his life."

Stacey's remarks on Twitter as the footballer battled for his life were "vile and abhorrent," the judge added."

So there we have it. We've gone from fire in a theatre to banning racism to jailing drunk university students for a lack of sensitivity to a hurt footballer. Such a brave new world we live in.

Prostitution Laws Struck Down

From the ruling at the Ontario Court of Appeal:

[325] For the reasons set out above, we declare that ss. 210 and 212(1)(j) of the Criminal Code are unconstitutional.

[326] To remedy the constitutional problem posed by s. 210, we strike the word “prostitution” from the definition of “common bawdy-house” in s. 197(1) as it applies to s. 210. We suspend this declaration of invalidity for 12 months to give Parliament an opportunity to draft a Charter-compliant bawdy-house provision, should it elect to do so.

[327] To remedy the constitutional problem posed by s. 212(1)(j), we read in words of limitation to clarify that the prohibition on living on the avails of prostitution applies only to those who do so “in circumstances of exploitation”.

[328] We conclude that the communicating provision in s. 213(1)(c) does not offend the principles of fundamental justice. Accordingly, it does not infringe the respondents’ s. 7 Charter rights. We further conclude that the application judge was bound by the Prostitution Reference to hold that s. 213(1)(c) is a reasonable limit on the right to freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter. We allow the appeal on these issues.

[329] The stay of the application judge’s decision is extended for 30 days from the date of the release of these reasons so that all parties can consider their positions. The practical effect is:

· The declaration of invalidity in respect of the bawdy-house provisions is suspended for one year from the date of the release of these reasons.

· The amended living on the avails provision takes effect 30 days from the date of the release of these reasons.

· The communicating provision remains in full force.

[330] We thank all counsel, including counsel for the interveners, for their thorough and thoughtful submissions. This is not a case for costs.

Signed: “Doherty J.A.”

“M. Rosenberg J.A.”

“K. Feldman J.A."

I am no fan of the exploitation of women but neither do I believe that no woman can choose to sell sex without coercion and exploitation. No, I wouldn't choose this career for my daughter but then a lot of people would object to her joining the army or becoming a lawyer. It is HER choice. If she did decide to take up prostitution I would want her to do so in the safest environment possible, with the support of other prostitutes and with the ability to employ security, financial and HR staff, and even be employed by a company that facilitates those support functions. I am happy that women, and men by the way, have choices.

It's funny how the Feminists and the religious right agree on this one, though. At least the religious right is consistent in their moral objection. How does a feminist who insists on a woman's right to choose justify opposing this?