Incredibly Selfish Athletes

Tibet. I've never been especially worked up over Tibet because the types that do get worked up are the same that get worked up over EVERYTHING. I hope I was just being a little more discerning. But with the recent violence in Tibet and some reading on the Interweb I am a little more supportive of the protests against China and especially the torch relay.

What I am also getting a little more intolerant of is the whining of athletes. Catriona Le May Doan on leaders considering boycotting the opening ceromonies

"Well too bad for them"

Funny. She goes on to say "The Olympics are about the athletes, who train their entire life to represent their country. This has become a platform for political situations."

Let's break down that sentence.

"Who train their entire life to represent their country"

There are two things there I think need clarifying. First, they train their entire life. OK. Do they do it all by themselves? Do they pay for it themselves? Or do they EXPECT and DEMAND that Canada support them? Well, it’s the latter. We pay them and they, or at least that twit Le May, Doan expects us to pay and shut up.

Second, Catriona states that these athletes “represent their country”. And that’s why we pay them, I guess. Still, if they represent us should we not, through our elected representatives, have a say in how they represent us? If we are embarrassed by their participation in an event we should, at the very least, be able to state our displeasure by removing our REAL REPRESENTATIVES from the opening ceremonies.

Ms. Le May Doan should be a little more grateful for the tax dollars that supported her in her when she needed it. She should understand that Canada is at these Olympics, not just the athletes. She should be frickin’ thankful we don’t just pull out of the whole sordid thing.

Finally, maybe we shouldn’t wrap our national pride up in selfish athletes. Maybe we should make the Olympics an individual event without nations. Maybe that would both get us off the hook for these self-serving ingrates and remove politics at the same time. Think on that Catriona.

Christy Clark: Ignorance Kills

Christy Clark, wife of Liberal Party organizer Mark Marrisen and afternoon talk show host on Vancouver's CKNW, is an ignorant . . . well, I'll let you finish that sentence.

This afternoon Clark interviewed a woman from the Canadian Cancer Society who wants "cosmetic" pesticides banned in BC. And she sees that as the first step towards the banning of all pesticide use in Canada. A caller, an older sounding gentleman, strongly supported the use of DDT despite Rachel Carson and, as Clark stated, "99% of scientists". Clark compared this man to global warming skeptics and commiserated with her guest as to the ignorance of this poor sod. Too bad he's right.

If Clark had just a touch of professionalism she might have researched pesticide use in Canada before the show and she just might have found out that DDT is the best hope for millions of African children in the fight against malaria. Or she could have asked her husband what Liberal MP Belinda Stronach is up to these days. Clark's is an example of the utter ignorance behind the resistance to DDT and the indirect cause of death for over 3,000 African children each day.

Maybe the management of CKNW will see fit to remove this moron from the airwaves.

Which story will they tell this time?

What part of no does the BC Human Rights Tribunal not understand? These guys have acccepted a case regarding Sikhs, turbans, and hardhats, despite the ruling of the Supreme Court that bona fide safety concerns trump religious rights. I know that a recent mediation between Sikh longshoremen and the Port of Vancouver allowed a compromise where Sikhs don't work in areas requiring hard hats, but at what point does accommodation become favouritism? We know from several sources that Sikhs can and do wear modified turbans with helmets, that there is no prohibition in the Sikh religion against wearing helmets (despite a lie from another recent complainant), and that the turban is not a symbol of the Sikh religion. How much more clear cut can this be?

Frankly, I do believe that the state imposes too many restrictions on Canadians in the name of safety. If someone wants to do something stupid, well, the Darwin Awards await. But if the State is going to legislate safety, exemptions based on religion and especially falsehoods spread by religious groups to gain special status, should be disallowed.

Death to the Infidels!!

Yeah! Death to the non-believers! How dare they not join in our protest! Death to those who didn't turn off their lights!

I'm not kidding. It appears that the recent Earth Hour debacle has enraged the greenies to the point that they are seriously pissed with anyone who dares not participate in their hour of non-power. Worse, they are showering conservative blogs with a crap-storm of intolerant, bigoted posts displaying a zealotry not seen since Spain took the Auto de fe to new levels.

From Cjunk:
Thanks Paul, you've added one more Christian to the list of people for whom I'll being going out of my way to ruin their Xmas season next year. After all, I don't believe in the baby Jesus, and apparently it's ok to just sh*t all over people when you don't believe what they do. Thanks again, you contemptuous dick!

So, for my poor greenie friends: Get over yourself! We are under no obligation to worship at your altar just because the TV news says we should. We don't have to turn off our lights to appease your wrathful earth god. We do not have to believe as you do. Please, if you feel a temptation to burn us non-believers at the stake, or chop our heads off in a cheesy video, remember that you are supposed to be the enlightened, progressive, tolerant left. Protest is a right, a right the right rarely uses. If we chose to ignore your orgy of self-righteousness and "awareness raising", or protest it with a Christmas display of massive proportion, we do so because we have the absolute right to do so. Forced conversions, though you may be sorely tempted, are just wrong.

I sure hope it was the Greens . . .

This is ridiculous

If people cannot express political views with the tolerance of their neighbors then we are in real trouble as a society. And this I know of what I speak. I work in an environment that can only be described as very left wing and I am very uncomfortable expressing my political views despite the fact that most of my co-workers have no such compunction. The fact is leftist views are acceptable in public conversation and conservative views are not. I do have to admit that many of the people I work with are the type of people I think we need on both sides of the political divide: Tolerant, accepting, & open-minded. I don't expect them to convert to my way nor do they expect I will to theirs, and I can be friends with them because politics is only one small part of our daily life. Despite that, many of the people I come into contact with on a daily basis assume I must think like they do and make it clear that any who do not are, well, stupid, racist, bigoted, selfish, uneducated, small-minded, or evil. I kid you not, "evil". And that is why I do not let most people know of my conservative leanings. Perhaps the problem is my own cowardice, but I won't take all the blame. The left has taken civil discourse and reduced it to us-against-them, and I am them.

My bet? My hope, really, is that the perpetrators of the attacks in Willowdale are extreme-leftists unhappy with those right wing Liberals. If not I will be ashamed to call myself a conservative.

A tradtition of lying?

I am sure I am treading on thin ice, and I fully expect the howls of "racist" and "bigot" to follow, but I have to ask if lying is an integral part of the Sikh religion? Two recent cases have only reinforced my opinion that religious Sikhs see no problem lying to non-Sikhs. The first, and most recent example, involves the motorcyclist in Ontario trying to fight his $110 fine for riding without a helmet. The Ontario Human Rights Commission argued "the provincial helmet law discriminates against Badesha because it violates his constitutional rights". One can only assume it was his right to religious freedom that they based that argument upon. But the turban is NOT a symbol of religious Sikhism (unless it is convenient for Sikhs).

In Canada Sikhs claim the turban is a religious requirement and expect exemptions. In France, under their new religious symbols law, the The Sikhs "insist that the turbans their men and boys wear over their uncut hair are not religious symbols but essential to their dignity" as the traditional way of keeping their religiously-mandated uncut hair neat and tidy.

So which is it? Well, from Wikipedia the five symbols of faith are: Kesh (uncut hair), Kanga (wooden comb), Kaccha (specially-designed underwear), Kara (Iron bracelet), & Kirpan (strapped sword). Please note that the Turban is not listed as a religious requirement. Representing it as such is a lie. Thankfully, the judge in the Ontario case ruled against Mr. Badesha.

The second case involved Laibar Singh, the paralyzed failed refugee claimant who keeps defying Canada Border Services' attempts to deport him. Mr. Singh came to Canada on a forged passport, claimed refugee status, had some sort of medical problem (different Sikh leaders give differing stories, aneurysm, stroke, whichever sounds worse on that day I presume), and became partially paralyzed. His refugee claim was denied and he was scheduled for deportation. Since then he has claimed sanctuary in the temple in Abbotsford, been arrested when he left sanctuary to go to the hospital, been released on bond, promptly re-entered sanctuary defying his bond conditions, and forfeited that bond on Monday when he failed to present himself to CBS as required.

His supporters have variously claimed they will pay his medical bills if allowed to stay in Canada, a bill over $500,000 so far, and then claimed that raising a $50,000 bond was an onerous imposition (Harsha Walia in interview with Bill Good on CKNW, sorry no link) and refused suggestions that they pay his bills in an Indian hospital, which would be cheaper for equivalent care. They have claimed he cannot get proper medical support in India and then silenced a supporter who found differently on a recent trip to India. All in all it is one lie after another.

These two cases demonstrate a real difficulty with truthiness in the Sikh community and it bothers me. It doesn't bother me that Sikhs wear turbans in the army or the RCMP and this isn't about that, it is about institutional lying to gain benefit at the expense of Canadian society. These people depend on the anti-racist groups silencing any dissent, any opposition, by calling them racist. We must not allow that, we must seek the truth, not just what benefits an insular community at odds with Canadian society and Canadian laws.

UPDATE

More lies here. Quote: "Badesha's religion forbids him from putting on anything over his turban while outside his house." Really? Do the reporters ever fact check? Look at the Wikipedia article I posted, under the History section. What's that you see? Why yes, it's a SIKH HELMET. I guess Sikhs can wear a helmet when it suits them.

Oh, And the Supreme Court has ruled that requiring Sikhs to wear hardhats does not discriminate if the requirement is a bona fide safety issue. Are there any Sikh soldiers? Do no Sikhs work in construction? How about Sikh Firefighters? Despite this ruling many provincial HRCs and arbitration councils still find in favour of Sikh clamimants. Sorta puts the boots to the whole "the court can over-rule the HRC" argument, doesn't it? We have a solid precedent setting rulling and it is ignored!

The UN says . . .

Isn't it wonderful how our many friends on the left bring up "international law" and the UN on regular basis in their arguments? Usually it is in support of their own agenda and often flies in the face of reality. How delicious then that one of the left's pet projects just got hoisted on that petard:

"The head of the United Nations drug control board put the federal government on notice yesterday to rein in provincial and other health authorities deemed to be flouting international treaties aimed at combating illicit drug use."

The UN is asking Canada to uphold their international treaty obligations by closing the Vancouver Safe Injection Site. I wonder how long it will take the usual suspect groups to demand the closure of InSite? I wonder . . .

More Cadman

I'm not going to bother linking all over the place on this, I'm just going to say I am extremely disappointed that the best the Conservatives can come up with is a bit of obfuscation and admitting that an unspecified offer was made.

Paying people to vote is wrong. Offering any kind of assistance in exchange for a vote is wrong. And if Mike Duffy is correct and Cadman voted for the Liberal budget because he was concerned he'd lose his HoC life insurance, that is wrong also. What the hell is with politicians that they can no longer tell right from wrong? I expect nothing from our "nuanced" "shades of gray" Liberals as they have shown time and again that ethics and policy are not what drive them, only power. But please, if I can't vote clean Conservative and I won't chance dirty Liberals, and I can't stomach socialists no matter how clean, and the Greens are just plain flaky, and Christian Heritage scares me, what do I do? Short of suicide, any suggestions?

Cadman as wake up call

I got up this morning, had a nice nice cup of coffee and then went to work. I think I should have stayed in bed.

Who the hell is the brain surgeon that thought offering Chuck Cadman a million dollar life insurance policy in exchange for a vote against a Liberal budget was a good idea? Cadman's loss of the Conservative nomination was embarrassing enough but this is utterly disgusting. Cadman was a Reformer and maybe some people in the current Conservative Party of Canada had better remember why Reform was so successful in the West. We must not allow the corruption, dirty tricks, and unethical behaviour of the old PCs (or the Liberals, for that matter) to creep back in to this party. I, for one, want a clean government, one that wins or loses based on policy and on effective communication of that policy. Frankly, the communication strategy of the CPC leaves me frustrated but I will allow that maybe I'm just not the master strategist and the CPC knows something I don't. What I won't allow is this kind of crude bribery. If this is the new CPC I will look somewhere else to vote.

Clean this mess up, now.

A quick update:

I read Jeff Jedras' post and aside from the hypocritical criticism of vote buying I was especially shocked that the pride some Liberal supporters take in their party's ability to do this kind of disgusting crap with finesse. I responded to one comment and re-post it below.

"...as they might have not been so dumb as to crudely offer money. Geez just because the Tories have a proclivity for being ham-handed and dumb doesn't make it the industry standard.

Yeah, the Liberals are much more discreet in their offers of "comfy fur". All one need do is look at the Blonde Bimbo becoming the Minister of "complex files".

What was offered to Cadman is utterly disgusting but I think we Conservatives can handle it without too much advice from the party of Shawinigate and Adscam. In fact, I am kind of tickled that such skullduggery is so foreign to us new Conservatives that we don't have the skill to do it with Liberal finesse and nuance. I am also very proud that a Reformer stuck to his ethics in the face of his own death and told the bastards to get the hell out. That's the kind of party I supported in Reform, something I don't thing many Liberal MPs would have had the balls to do. If we need to clean up some of the old guard, we will. We've done it once already.

A Liberal finally gets it!!!

It's a funny thing how history shapes politics. Canada is such a huge country that the experience of someone in BC or Alberta is totally disconnected from the experience of Ontario or Newfoundland. My dad tells me how his family, a prominent family in the coastal pulp and paper industry in the early to mid 20th century, were very strong Liberal supporters. And he tells me how Trudeau changed that. We have known the utter disdain of Eastern Canadian politicians, the bigoted slurs towards Western rednecks, and the corruption and greed in both the Liberal and Progressive Conservative. Where we voted PC in '88 we just couldn't stomach the corruption of Mulroney and his coterie, nor his pandering to Quebec interests despite a strong Western base of MPs. We tossed him. The Liberals have never seemed to understand that the death of the PCs wasn't brought on by Reform, and it wasn't necessarily policy based, it was mostly a reaction to the rot, the pork barrel, the patronage, and the disdain with which Eastern politicians treated the grass roots in the West. We rebuilt a party from the bottom up because of that. That's why I am still proud to support the new Conservative Party.

It looks like the Liberals may finally get it. At least one has:

"The problem is, we rushed into a leadership race after the election defeat without ever really acknowledging the deep rot that has set into the Liberal Party, let alone doing anything to fix it. We created this rot, this sickness through years of Chretien/Martin civil war, preceded by years of Turner/Chretien civil war, going back who knows how many generations. A rot worsened by years of majority government with noses bellied-up to the trough, by self-important organizers that put winning and position before policy and what's right, by a deep sense of entitlement, by a bloated party machine dependent on big corporate donations."

Sure, he's not espousing Conservative policy and that's fine with me, I think we need policy choice. We certainly need an alternative to the Conservatives that is principled and clean. As I have often mused, I could support a clean Liberal Party under someone like Ignatieff or Manley. I'm not an ideological conservative so much as I want to vote for someone who does what they say they will do and won't line their own pockets while doing it. Maybe the Liberal Party will reform now that guys like Jeff have their blinders off.

Why you can't trust Liberals

Ok, easy answer: Because they lie.

The Big City Lib has posted on domestic terrorism and tags it "Christian Terror, Domestic Terrorism". Those are interesting tags for a post on domestic terrorism. From them one could assume that Christian terrorists are among of the leading terror groups in North America. That would be a bad assumption.

Below is a map from BCL's own research site. As you can see, it lists very few "abortion related" attacks in the US. It lists 6 attacks despite giving it its own category.

When we compare that to common "lefty" causes like the environment or animal rights we get this:

Environment or animal rights don't get their own category so I had to filter by the two main groups, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). Total incidents for these two groups? 70. Yup 7-0. But "environmentalist" doesn't have its own tag. "Animal Rights" doesn't have its own tag. But "Abortion Related" does. Hmmmm.

I'd spend more time drilling down on the data, maybe grouping "leftist" groups and "rightist" groups, but I think I've made my point. Do you think BCL will change his tags?

Bathroom Humour

I don't usually hang around in washrooms whipping out my cell phone camera but when I saw this on the wall of the stall I was, uh, using, I couldn't help but snap a pic:

I know I'm not the first person to photograph a swastika in a toilet but I think mine has some artistic merit, and even a point. Whereas Kinsella's swastika was apparently unopposed in its statement, mine was defaced by someone not so much supportive of Nazi symbology. Then I read the little diatribe next to the defaced swatika:

"If it wasn't for you racist whores there wouldn't be no fucking wars"

Sure, it's not the most eloquent argument against racism but hey, it's a toilet. And considering its company:

It's almost Shakespeare.

The point? Maybe if Warren had left his find in the toilet, where it belonged, others might have exercised their free expression rights and crapped all over it. After all, it was written in secret, in a bathroom, by a coward too afraid to express those views in public. Society's denunciation is the best way to deal with this. When I see a swastika on the street or in a newspaper, unopposed, I'll worry. Until then I'll happily let the closet Nazis vent by scrawling on the wall in a crapper.

Liberal Military "Policy" (Updated, and updated, when will Dion have a "Final" position??

There is a lot of criticism, much of it deserved, regarding the Conservatives' messaging on Afghanistan. Why are we there? Are we doing anything good? Are our soldiers dying for nothing? After the Manley report I hope that those questions can be answered in a thoughtful and straight forward manner. I doubt they will be, though. You see, this has become a political football between the Liberals and the Conservatives. A football that was kicked off by the Libs, but now they want to take their ball and go home. Well maybe not, but they certainly want to play without any linemen.

What Stephane Dion has proposed is the absolutely perfect example of Liberal "nuance" and "compromise". No one would be really happy with it; the Cons want to stay and fight, the NDP and the Bloc want our soldiers home now. Under Dion our soldiers can stay, just not fight. Sure, they can defend themselves but there will be no "search and destroy" missions. That's like saying the quarterback can throw the ball down field but the receivers can't cross the line of scrimmage. The quarterback is gonna get sacked, bad.

The problem with a political compromise is that war is not politics. The enemy is rarely willing to compromise even if you are. Worse than that, when politics becomes the driver behind combat operations we get Bosnia all over again. The Rules of Engagement were so bad in Bosnia that, literally, a soldier could not fire his weapon at someone about to throw a grenade because the threat, though imminent wasn't actual, and he couldn't shoot the attacker afterwards because the threat, the grenade, was gone. He could try to shoot the grenade but shooting the thrower was considered revenge and not self defense.

"Even if a fighter pulled a pin from a grenade, argued one, the ROE proscribed any use of force until it was actually thrown. "And even then the threat is the grenade,” he said. “We can't even shoot the person. We have to shoot the grenade" From page 94

The Liberals propose we do somethings similar, we cannot engage the enemy unless he engages us, giving him the advantage of picking when an where to fight. We cannot search him out giving him freedom of movement and safety when not attacking. They propose we concentrate on training and redevelopment, both of which they must know depend on security first. They want us to believe that we can be humanitarian peace keepers in a war zone. The sad thing is, they know it's not possible. Ignatieff and Rae both know that, their own MPs have stood up and said it is wrong. But it is popular and that's all that matters when politics is the driver.

Lewis MacKenzie has seen this before and he says that Liberal plan would endanger our soldiers. This is the core of the problem. The Liberals, having sent our troops into combat, now wish to switch sides for political gain. They want to use our soldiers to win votes. This isn't new for them. Jean Chretien canned a much needed helicopter deal for just those purposes. The Liberals neglected our military so badly they sent them into a desert war wearing green camouflage. Liberals have no love of the military except as a way of scoring points.

Now, having sent our soldiers into combat, the Liberals want to betray them and their sacrifice. A soldier will fight when and where he is told to but he expects that his political masters will at least let him try to win. Liberal "nuance" won't let him.

Update

Dion has thrown "nuance" to the wind. With the glaringly bad "end to combat" nowhere to be found the Liberals have adopted a resolution that basically parrots the Conservatives. Thank you Mr. Ignatieff.

Upperdate

Lewis MacKenzie thinks that the Liberal motion is just a sop to get Dion through to an election where, should he win, he can implement his real policy. Jason Cherniak says it's all lies, but his own post contradicts that when he writes:

Just because Stéphane Dion is not choosing Afghanistan as the election issue, it does not mean that Afghanistan will not motivate his decision on whether to force an election over the budget. Indeed, it is at that point that we will learn whether he really wants to end the combat mission. The exact words of a wishy-washy Parliamentary motion are all but meaningless. An attempt to change the Government of Canada, however, would be telling.

Upperdater

Stephane Dion has "clarified" his position once again. It seems that he didn't say what he said, that we are all too stupid to understand what he says, and if he says it differently we'll finally get what he said. Unless you're Jason Cherniak, and then you're totally plugged in to Dion's brain. The problem is Denis Coderre and Keith Martin aren't as plugged in as Cherniak

And another General, this one serving in Afghanistan, says Dion's "position" is untenable. Perhaps we should just say that it's poorly thought out, politically driven crap. Or maybe we can paraphrase Vladimir Putin and say that Dion's position is just " . . . detritus excavated from someone's nostril and smeared across bits of paper."

(Reading Putin shows why pacifism is a really bad idea these days . . .)

In support of Kurt Westergaard

For Kurt Westergaard. Because murder is not part of Western civil discourse. Because one religion should not dictate to others. Because free speech is the most valuable right we have.

(The scary thing is, I hesitated to publish this for fear some whacko would hunt me down and kill me. Because of that, especially.)

The Shark looked up . . .

. . . And saw Warren Kinsella. Today has been one helluva of day for our heroic battler against old men and mouth-breathing trogs. First he posted about his disagreement with Jonathan Kay and his recent article, at the bottom of which he solicited responses, both supportive and not so much. Then he posted several of those responses, including Jason Cherniak's sad story of childhood woe. Soon after he posted a not-so-supportive e-mail from an anonymous person. So what does Warren do? He takes the e-mail of the sender, harvests the IP address, and tracks it back to the Privy Council Office. Now, before you let that bit of sleuthing impress you, any 14 year old script kiddie can do that. The real issue is that Warren just cannot accept that anyone can disagree with him and, well, still be human. This person had to be tracked down and exposed! And then he posts this:

from the blog of some rightist Einstein who labours under the appellation "Free Born Canuck," and declines to let anyone know his true identity (like most of them, because it means Mom and Dad will rescind their computer privileges), responding to my post that sent Messrs. Kay, Steyn, Levant and the Anti-Muslim Phalangists into spit-flecked apoplexy:

"Is there not some fearful symmetry here that the symbol that killed 600,000 jews is now an inverse symbol for the virtues of limited speech?"

There you go. Along with some wince-inducing purple prose, the latest Far Right Free Speech Poster Boy (FRFSPB, for short) informs us that: (a) "600,000 jews," quote unquote, were killed in the Holocaust, and (b) the swastika is the banner under which those of us who favour reasonable limitations on expression - say, hate propaganda and violent pornography - now march. ( The swastika. In Canada. On those who oppose hate ...oh, you get it.)

And people ask me why Liberals like me win elections so often.

Does anyone really wonder why people want to remain anonymous when dealing with Warren? Really? Because I have to wonder why anyone would want to conduct any discourse with him when he obviously cannot distinguish between private and public and has so little regard for other opinions. I mean, not only can you not disagree with Warren, Warren will go out of his way to mis-characterize your comments (see the misprint in the example above, 600,000 should be 6,000,000 which Warren kindly distorts to mean the guy is a holocaust denier instead of a bad "zero" counter. God forbid someone should make an error!). Good lord, if you criticize someone on Warren's side he will write the most flattering bit of fellatio and then condemn you to hell for uttering a bad word about them. See Warren's latest shot at Ezra Levant, or his vomit inducing support of Richard Warman. But most disgusting is his obvious hypocrisy. Warren must have an IQ above room temp yet he can't seem to tell the difference between an HRC witch hunt and a libel case. Somehow, if there is any way to write something with a bit of spin or distortion to make another look bad, Warren will do it. And that is the real answer to Warren's question, "And people ask me why Liberals like me win elections so often?" The Liberals win so often because they're a bunch of liars, crooks, hypocrites who will say, write, or do ANYTHING to win.

Me, I'd rather have my self-respect.

What certain Liberals have forgotten

The Winnipeg General Strike of 1919, note the very relevant sign

I've been having some fun over at Cherniak's place. Sometimes I wonder how someone as willfully obtuse as Mr. Cherniak passed the Bar. . .

So here's a list of wars, rebellions and civil disobedience movements that somehow changed the way rights were recognized in Canada, BT (Before Trudeau, the year zero that Liberals believe all Human Rights began.):

• The American Revolution - Don't forget the large Canadian participation in, fight against, and effect afterwards.
  
  
• The War of 1812 - Read the section of Effect on Canada, suspicion of Responsible Government, and perhaps the root of suppression of rights in Canada.
  
  
• Rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada
  
  
• Red River and Riel Rebellions
  
  
• Anti-conscription Riots in Quebec
  
  
• Winnipeg General Strike
  
  
• Battle of Ballantyne Pier, On to Ottawa and the Regina Riot
  
  
• Canadian Civil Rights Movement and the Gastown Riot
  

That's all the time I have for now, but that should make a basic case that rights are not derived from pieces of paper but through the willingness of people to defend those rights, sometimes with violence.

One more post on Free Speech

It has been quite the whirlwind of posts from both the left and right on the need either to restrict free speech or to allow it unfettered. It's pretty obvious I am in the latter group. And no, that doesn't mean I support neo-Nazi ideology.

Some of the worst arguments in favour of restricting free speech appear on the blogs of the Big City Lib and Jason Cherniak. Both seem to think that a law that makes it illegal to say or publish something that is "likely" to expose a group to hate or contempt is a good thing. Of course, defining "likely" is difficult, and BCL seems to think that getting nasty e-mails meets the threshold of this law. While it is certainly easy to turn away from the persecution of neo-Nazis under this law, it is the principle that is important, not the target. I will state for the record that I have no sympathy for, nor common ideology with, Nazis. Still, I fear that preventing these people from stating their views is dangerous. It is dangerous not because their ideas have merit but because it is the first step towards muzzling others. In fact it was only the first step. The second step was to go after people with firmly held religious beliefs.

Chris Kempling was fined by his union for writing a letter to the editor of his local newspaper that stated his religious beliefs regarding homosexuality. He was invited to testify before a Parliamentary Committed in regards to Bill C-38 and his union again took disciplinary action against him. Only the intervention of NDP MP Bill Siksay and CPC MP Vic Toews ended that bit of oppression. At no time did Kempling advocate violence or hatred, only his religious beliefs which are explicitly protected under the Charter. Kempling's attempts to seek redress in the courts have all failed.

Hugh Owen was convicted by the Saskatchewan Human Right Commission for inciting hatred against homosexuals. His crime: Publishing an ad with references to Bible verses that condemn homosexuality. He didn't even quote them, just referenced them. Thankfully, that case has since been reversed on appeal, but the fact remains that a Tribunal found that the Bible was hate literature.

The third step is attempting to muzzle mainstream journalists for writings that offend.

I could go on with examples but I think my point is clear. What isn't clear is why our centre-left friends are so concerned about this kind of speech. I can only offer this explanation: They don't trust us. They don't trust that the average Canadian can see through specious arguments regarding world Jewry and the Zionist conspiracies. They don't trust us not to lynch gays because a Bible verse says homosexuality is wrong. They don't even trust us not to spend our money on "Beer and Popcorn" when our children have needs. It goes even further. Reading "progressive" blogs it becomes evident that we who do not believe as they do are backward, uneducated, and easily swayed. That we have been convinced to support other politicians than they do is evidence. It is because of our shortcomings that these elite feel that we need protection from words that might sway us, or influence us away from their truth. Simply, we are too stupid to be trusted with free speech.

Canada is a Leader!

And Dion isn't, apparently. Ok, that's a cheap shot but I can't help myself when I read stuff like this. Another news story today echoes the sentiment found in April's Angus Reid poll, that 64% of Canadians feel "Canada is shouldering too much of the burden of NATO's mission in Afghanistan". Thank god Stephane Dion doesn't feel the same way:

“(Canadians have) said that Canada will not move unless everybody moves. This is the recipe for failure”


Sorry, sorry, I have misquoted Mr. Dion. Dion really doesn't believe Canada is a leader, he thinks we've done enough and should pull our troops out of Afghanistan. Stephane only wants Canada to be a leader on the easy stuff, like HE was on the Kyoto file. Is Canada a leader? If so, let's lead in Afghanistan, too.

More Kinsella Hypocrisy

It's hard to believe that Warren Kinsella's blind hypocrisy could get any worse, but it has. After Ezra Levant wrote a piece decrying the use of kangaroo courts, also known as Human Rights Tribunals, Warren waded in with this personal attack on Ezra. Warren is purposely obtuse in attacking Levant for using THE COURTS to attempt to settle disputes when any moron (and I can only assume Warren isn't a moron) can see that Ezra specifically refers to the much higher level of evidence necessary to prevail in court, as well as the personal financial burden on the claimant, in comparison to using HRCs to stifle free speech. He makes it clear that the courts are the place to seek remedy for libel or defamation, even hate speech. What Levant says is that it is utterly inappropriate to use HRCs to censor speech, that HRCs were never intended for that use, and that the much lower threshold of evidence coupled with the activist bent and lack of qualifications of tribunal members makes them a danger to free speech.

Kinsella takes great pride in taking on the neo-Nazi movement and I strongly agree that Nazi ideology is utterly repugnant. Where Kinsella and I (and I might add most of the great thinkers of history) disagree is in how to combat noxious thoughts and speech. Kinsella seems to think that outlawing nasty thoughts is the way to go and lauds Richard Warman for using HRCs to prosecute neo-Nazis. That position is dangerous, much more dangerous than some pathetic skinhead. The very idea that we can somehow deny free speech to one group because we vehemently disagree with them strongly implies that we can do the same to others. At what point will my thoughts be censored? Or yours? Or even Kinsella's? Should I really trust Warren Kinsella, or some unqualified HRC member, or even the courts to draw the line as to what speech is acceptable? Absolutely not! Society must draw that line not through censorship but by engaging ideas we find repugnant, repudiating them, ridiculing them, and marginalizing them with better arguments. On this, I will stand with these great minds:

"Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds." -Thurgood Marshall

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." -George Washington

"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." -John Milton

"You have not converted a man because you have silenced him." -John Morley

"To hear one voice clearly, we must have freedom to hear them all." -Kerry Brock

"The first principle of a free society is an untrammeled flow of words in an open forum." -Adlai E. Stevenson

"We are willing enough to praise freedom when she is safely tucked away in the past and cannot be a nuisance. In the present, amidst dangers whose outcome we cannot foresee, we get nervous about her, and admit censorship." -Edward M. Forster

"I am opposed to any form of tyranny over the mind of man." -Thomas Jefferson