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?

Remembrance Day

How to fix the House of Commons

It's rather easy, actually:

Change the Seating Plan

The reason we have the government side separated from the opposition is simply to prevent violence. The sides in the British house are apparently two sword lengths apart for the obvious reason that swords mixed with tempers was considered a bad idea. Today I doubt anyone expects the HoC to devolve into a Taiwanese style brawl. I think that if we want to make the various parties work together in more collegial style then we shouldn't seat by party. I think we should seat the leaders together and then randomly seat everyone else. I think it would be a lot harder to act like an ass, to heckle, or to ask truly stupid questions, when you aren't surrounded by your own partisans.

Kady O'Malley has a drink with Galactus

Kady O'Malley is in a froth because people, shockingly, sign online petitions with false names. How ironic that she herself sat down for a beer with the mighty Galactus, destroyer of petitions! Of course, she probably knows Galactus by his more Earthly name, Michael J. Murphy, sycophant and kiss-ass extraordinaire. Here's his take on their relationship:

Later, I spent a very enjoyable and informative couple of hours drinking alcohol with Macleans Magazine's blogging superstar Kady O'Malley. It will probably take a week to process all the political info I picked up during that time.

As an aside, Ms. O'Malley is ultra-cool, immensely charming, but really, really tiny. Thankfully, I didn't try to hit on her or wear a lampshade or anything stupid like that.

Of course, this is serious business. Falsifying names on an online petition is OK if your alter-ego is some comic book goober and you attack the right people but this is different! This is an American lobby group attempting to influence the decisions of a branch of the Canadian government. You might think that is a bad thing but Ms. O'Malley assures me it is only bad when evil Americans like the NRA do it. At least I think that email was from Kady, but who knows these days? Maybe it was from Galactus' buddy The Silver Surfer...

The Trench Coat Ban

Gun control has been an abject failure as the examples of Kimveer Gill, Valeri Fabrikant, Marc Lepine, Denis Lortie have so aptly shown. Each shooting occurred after Canada introduced some new restrictive Gun controls:
(from Wikipedia)

• Regulation in 1934 required the registration of handguns with records identifying the owner, the owner's address and the firearm
• Automatic weapons were added to the category of firearms that had to be registered in 1951.
• In 1969, Bill C-150 created categories of “non-restricted,” “restricted” and “prohibited” weapons. Police were also given preventive powers of search and seizure by judicial warrant if they had grounds to believe that weapons that belonged to an individual endangered the safety of society
• In 1977, Bill C-51 required Firearms Acquisition Certificates (FACs) for the acquisition (but not possession) of all firearms and introduced controls on the selling of ammunition. FAC applicants were required to pass a basic criminal record check before being issued an FAC. Fully automatic weapons were also prohibited
• In 1991, Bill C-17 tightened up restrictions and established controls on any firearms that had a military or paramilitary appearance. Legislation also made changes to the FAC system. FAC applicants were now required to pass a firearms safety course, pass a more thorough background check, and wait a minimum of 28 days after applying for an FAC before being issued one. Finally in addition to the above changes, laws were put into place that restricted ownership of high capacity magazines, limiting handguns to 10 rounds and most semi-automatic rifles to 5. The restrictions did not cover rimfire rifles or manual (e.g., bolt action rifles). Provinces have the choice to opt-out of this regulation.
• In 1995, Bill C-68 introduced new, stricter, gun control legislation. The current legislation provides harsher penalties for crimes involving firearm use, licences to possess and acquire firearms, and registration of all firearms, including shotguns and rifles.

Controlling guns just isn’t the answer. The issue is the concealment of weapons. The first gun laws restricted pistols because they are too easy to conceal and since then each of the mass shootings in Canada has involved the use of long guns of some sort or another. Today’s gun laws continue the attempt to restrict the use of concealable weapons through the use of barrel length restrictions and over-all-length restrictions. These have made it harder and harder for mass killers to accomplish their goals but further restrictions are likely to impact legitimate gun users without further deterring the mass killer. Still, we must try!

And so I propose the ultimate solution to the concealed weapon dilemma:

The Trench Coat Ban!

Without the long-coat to conceal their weapons of choice mass killers could not carry powerful guns to their targets. And there is simply no need in a modern, Western country for trench coats. After all, we no longer have trenches, and the flimsy excuse that they are dual purpose rain coats cannot be allowed to sway us from the goal of gun safety. Certainly an outright ban may be a bit harsh so I propose, instead, a long-coat registry with strict screening and licensing requirements of long coats in the restricted category, mid-length-type coats (full length coats will be prohibited with no grandfathering). Non-restricted coats must end at the hips thereby denying the ability to conceal long guns. In this way we can continue on the road to safe, secure Canada.

Ps. What is it with all the mass shootings in Quebec?

Anti-Semitism

Richard Warman and Warren Kinsella seem to think Antisemitism, Judenhaas, is eight or nine white supremacists with grade school educations posting shit on the Internet. It's not.

Yesterday I went to the park with my son. He's Chinese. I'm not. Because of that I am mindful of how easy it is to criticize "the Chinese", or more specifically the government of mainland China, and how the word "Chinese" makes it hard to distinguish whether I am talking about a government or all Chinese people. As Kinsella knows it's awfully easy to be offensive when talking about the people, the government, or the food. So I am careful.

Anyway, back to the park. My son was playing on the playground while some older kids, teenagers, were hanging out near the swings. I was shocked to here the oldest of the group give the younger a primer on "the Jews", as he put it. He didn't like Jews because "they think they're better than us". So where does a kid get an idea like that? The answer is rather easy, actually, he gets it from the TV, from his parents, from teachers in school, he gets everywhere that people criticize Israel and make no effort to ensure that they distinguish between the state and the race. The real problem is that most of the criticism of Israel isn't meant to distinguish between them. I believe that the majority of that criticism IS meant to be criticism of Jews in general.

So how did it happen? Where did all the support for the plucky upstarts who held off the combined power of all the Arab nations go? It went away when the PLO and Arabs were able to get positive press coverage, when people began to see Palestinian Arabs as the underdogs. The Israelis had the bad luck to win too much, I guess. We can see it in the press coverage of the "freedom flotilla". Israeli soldiers boarded the ship armed with paintball guns and were met with knives, and metal poles. They were ambushed and they again had the misfortune to win. Their commander was stabbed, tossed over a railing, disemboweled, and then walked down a deck before his captors were shot. None of this has been reported widely. Instead we get useful idiots like Kevin Neish, who saw Israeli soldiers captured and taken below decks and still seems to think he was part of a non-violent protest. We get declarations about piracy and International law from people who don't know the law or are willfully lying, all unchallenged by our media.

I see it in our schools when teachers, mostly leftish leaning as they are, casually trash the US in front of students. Schools are terribly insular environments and it is easy for teachers to think their world view is acceptable because their peers don't challenge them. My brother had to take his teenage daughter aside after she spewed some incredibly anti-American crap and explain to her that her teachers were wrong and that her views were unacceptable.

And that brings me to the real problem with the jihad against neo-Nazis: It's a distraction form the real threat to Jews. No one will ever listen to the rantings of the skinheads but they will listen to the more subtle bigotries of their teacher, their parents, and the media. The left in this country and across the globe has bought into the working class under dog myths built about Palestinian Arabs. The left has become the real threat to Jews worldwide and I can only hope that the outing of people like Helen Thomas and Libby Davies will open some eyes to the damage closet-Judenhaas can do to our children. I only wish I had said something to that kid but I doubt it would have helped.

An update: The children of Germany are as bad. Just go home to Germany says Helen Thomas. Right.

Canada's military awards system is broken

"Our recognition system still sucks" - General Rick Hillier

I was a soldier once. For a short time. I was a reservist. I almost feel embarrassed to say that. I feel that way because I feel like I'm one of a very few who ever did that. But I shouldn't feel that way. Sure, I was "only" a reservist but I volunteered as any soldier volunteers. I knew that Canada could call on me to fight, to kill, and to die at any time while I was a member of The Regiment. It's strange because there are a lot of people like me who don't talk much about their time in the service, many because we served during the "decade(s) of darkness", other because after serving for 20 years they had nothing to show for it beyond a pension. The government of Canada has always been very stingy recognizing the service, volunteer service, of the men and women in the military.

I am now part of the Regimental Association, a group of ex-soldiers who work together to support and remember the service and sacrifice of the members of our regiment. Because of that I became aware of the veteran's plates available to BC residents who meet the requirements set by veterans groups in consultation with the government of British Columbia. I felt undeserving having served only two years but it was explained to me that these things are as much to remind other Canadians of the sacrifices soldiers make on their behalf as it is to recognize one individual's contribution. So I applied and received veteran's plates and I display them proudly.


I received an email the other day about another form of recognition. There is a movement to request the creation of the Governor General's Volunteer Service Medal. It is meant to recognize and reward service of one year or more in the Canadian Forces after 1947. It is a simple thing, just a small medal that will distinguish veterans from the mass of citizenry at Remembrance Day ceremonies.



Yes, I would receive this medal, though I don't feel I particularly deserve it. I support the creation of this medal mostly for the thousands of ex-service men and women who put in years of their life and left with no recognition whatsoever. It is important to recognize this service and encourage these people to remember and display that service to the rest of Canadians. In only a few short years the veterans of the second war will be gone and our Remembrance Days will be diminished. We need to encourage the other veterans to come out, to give them some token of esteem to distinguish them so they can march with some small pride as we remember others who's sacrifice was so much greater.

I hope we can convince the government of Canada to look at this proposal seriously. If you would like to help please sign the petition at:

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/volunteer-service-medal-for-our-veterans.html

November 11, 2009

Lt. Col. R.L. Boyle, 10th BN, Canadian Infantry, Poperinghe Old Military Cemetery

Lt. Col W.F.R. Hart-McHarg, 7th BN, Canadian Infantry, Poperinghe Old Military Cemetery

Frank Smith, 879 Royal Army Medical Corps, Poperinghe New Military Cemetery

Unknown, 7th BN, Canadian Infantry, Bedford House Cemetery

Carbon Tax end game

How does a carbon tax not affect gas prices? By not DIRECTLY adding to the price, says Dion. But how do you not add to the price of a litre of gas when you tax the exploration, drilling or digging, & refining of fuel? No matter how much you squawk Dion’s Carbon tax WILL increase the price of gasoline. And food. And electricity. And heating oil. And shipping. And manufacturing. And. And. And.

Of course, we can offset those price increases buying nothing and by not traveling. Say bye bye to the economy. But we'll have such a nice planet!

Checkers vs Chess

So, why is the Conservative party having so much difficulty in the last few weeks? I could gnash teeth and find a sack-cloth or I could indulge in a little conspiracy theory. Remember that article by Tom Flanagan? The one where he said Harper's goal wasn't to beat the Liberals but to destroy them? Isn't it possible Harper is doing just that?

When the election was half-way through and Jason Cherniak was pulling out his hair bemoaning the lack of Liberal advertising I suggested in an un-published comment (you chicken, Jason!) that perhaps the Liberal party was trying to save themselves for the future by not spending close to the limit. Given all the speculation about the Liberal debt levels and their inability to fundraise I thought maybe the Liberals had gone into survival mode and were trying to keep the debt down.

Since then the Liberals have gone up, the Conservatives down, the Liberals are spending on ads all over the place and people are once again questioning Harper's campaign. What if it's all a deliberate plan on Harper's part? Think about it, if the Liberals spend the max and lose they are toast for the next ten years. Harper wants to destroy them and what better way than to lure them into a full on punching match at the end of the election? I'm sure Harper will be quite happy with another minority, especially because the Liberals will be totally unable to oppose his agenda. And I'm quite sure that if Dion loses he's out and the Liberals will have another destructive and expensive leadership race and convention. It's a no-lose situation for Harper.

Another example of S.13 stupidity

It seems too many Liberals can't see the forest for the trees. The "trees" being non-liberal thinkers and the "forest" being everyone. You see, if the the bar for S.13 is "contempt" and protected groups include nationality, how then can we talk about the holocaust? Seriously, if you were a German or German-Canadian, how would you feel if you were constantly told it was your people who murdered 6,000,000 Jews, and 6,000,000 others? How do you think other people feel about Germans when they learn this truth? How does a German child feel in class when her people are discussed in that context? Is it likely that some people would feel contempt for Germans given that information?

Or Russians? Do you think the Ukrainian genocide could lead to contempt? Chinese? How about the cultural revolution? English? Ever hear of the potato famine, the penal laws? Do you begin to get the idea? I sure hope so.

25 Rejected Liberal Tips on a Greener Living

1. Inside, outside, frontside, backside, use your underwear for 4 days!
2. When buying clothing, if it itches it’s good for you and Gaia.
3. Take the 100 mile challenge. Sure, that means wormy onions in February but shift happens, you know.
4. Body hair is beautiful.
5. After you smoke your ganja you can make the fiber into tie-dye T-shirts for barter.
6. Ride your bike to work . . . in January . . . in Toronto.
7. Don’t just sell your car, recycle it! Your financial loss is Gaia’s gain (and the wrecker’s . . .)
8. Go vegan! The animal exploitation industry is a major contributor to greenhouse gases.
   
9. Turn down your thermostat, wear wool. (hold on, what was #8 again?)
10. Use ethanol! No, wait, use wind power! No, wait, use nuclear! No, wait . . . Aaw, man! Which one doesn’t starve kids, kill birds, or go all “China syndrome” and shift?
11. Drink water. But not that trendy bottled crap in plastic, no, drink tap water. Unless you’re under a boil water advisory or live on a reserve.
12. Eat less. Thin is in!
13. Don’t think too hard, brains use lots of calories.
14. Get a vasectomy using only natural anesthetics. Seriously. You love the planet, don’t you?
15. Don’t use antibiotics; they’ll just end up in our water one way or another.
16. Move to the “big city” and live in a loft with 10 other eco-friendly people. You’re body heat will keep you warm in winter!
17. Buy only organic food produced by fair trade, unionized labourers. (Not those fascist farmers. They all vote Conservative, you know)
18. Turn off your computer. Your parents didn’t need one and neither do you.
19. Turn off your TV. Your Grandparents didn’t need one and neither do you.
20. Refrain from having children. Sex is ok, just not the kids.
21. Sign a non-resuscitation order. Why waste energy when you’re gonna die someday anyway?
22. Body odour is natural. Deodorants are not.
23. Ride the bus. A lot.
24. Compost everything. Your Great Grandparents didn’t need a toilet and neither do you.
25. Finally, consider suicide. One less person poisoning Gaia is the greatest gift of all. (But not until after the election, ok? We need your vote)