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.

All 12 of them?

So the census came out and one of the more interesting things was that there are apparently a lot of gay married men in Ft. MacMurray.   Well, actually there are a lot of married men living together in Ft. Mac and the census people just assumed two married guys living together were married to each other.  Not so much it seems in the oilsands.  Instead, married guys share accommodations in the Northern Alberta town but they are actually married to women who live elsewhere.  Oh well.

The other thing that struck me was the number of gay couples in Canada:

The agency counted 21,015 married gay and lesbian couples and another 43,560 in common-law relationships. That’s up from the 2006 census, which enumerated 45,345 of them — 7,465 married and 37,885 common-law.

So doing the math, there are  64,575 gay or lesbian couples, married or common law, in Canada.  That's 129,150 gays and lesbians in a steady relationship.  Now I have to start making some assumptions and I'll try to be conservative (Sorry, I mean I'll try to be generous).  Let's assume that half of gay and lesbian individuals are involved in a long term relationship.  That would mean there are 260,000 gays and lesbians in Canada.  The population of Canada is approximately 34,937,000.  So, 260,000 divided by 34,937,000 and we get 0.007 or 0.7%. 

Let's say I was wrong and there are twice as many gay singles as there are gays in relationships:

390,000 / 34,937,000 =  0.011 or 1.1% (which is the number the 2006 census postulated)

So, are my figures really wrong, or was the census incorrect?  Where is my error?  And does this finally put to rest the myth of 10% ?  Or even 2%?

Finally, if 1.1% of Canadians are gay or lesbian, what is the subset that are actually "transgendered"?  And if Rob Anders insulted all of them, would there be enough to fill a bus?

Eleven

Eleven:  Canada finally rids itself of both the francophone anchor and the Trudeau family.

I Don't Hate Gays

I really shouldn't have to say that but I figure it's better safe than sorry.  Chik-Fil-A in the US is finding out the hard way that having an opinion that goes against the accepted wisdom of the establishment left can be dangerous.  I wonder how this guy is going to survive the onslaught now that he has come out to support Chik-Fil-A's COO, Dan Cathy's, right to state his anti-gay marriage opinion?  Will it matter that Steve Salbu is gay himself?

I am afraid.  Literally.  I am afraid that we will soon lose our most basic right; the right to freedom of speech and of conscience.  I am afraid because those on the left characterize opinions they do not like as "hate speech" and work so hard to legislate against opinions they do not like.  I may or may not agree with Dan Cathy regarding gay marriage but I certainly think Cathy's right to freedom of speech is much more important than anyone's "right"* to marry.

In fact, it is precisely because we tolerate unpopular ideas and allow people to express socially divergent ideas that gays have gained the rights that, I believe, they always should have had.  How ironic that those same people who took such good advantage of the bedrock of rights should now try to deny that to others.


*note: No one has a right to marry.  Millions of people are denied marriage because no one wants to to spend ten seconds with them, let alone marry them!  Further, marriage is a moral institution that sets rules and boundaries on couples through promises not to cheat, not to leave when the going gets rough, and so on.  What business is that of government's?  My personal morality is not something I need a bureaucrat to rubber stamp.


Do I think gays should be allowed to marry, not as a right, but as a matter of choice between two consenting adults?  Hell yeah!  But the government should not be "blessing" their marriage in my name, or anyone's, just as they should keep their nose out of my own marriage.

I Told You So...

I told you so.

Monty Robinson gets a conditional sentence. Yup, everyone wants justice in these kinds of cases, especially our lefty friends who love sticking it to The Man or, in this case, a cop.  How fitting then that Monty Robinson gets almost nothing for obstructing justice when he killed motorcyclist, Orion Hutchinson.  You see, Monty is an aboriginal and so gets Gladue consideration.

Despite what BC Grand Chief Stewart Phillip said:

 "...that provisions that favour rehabilitation over jail time for natives are meant to apply to those who have suffered trauma, and other factors that he believes are not present in Robinson's case."

"This is a misapplication in his case because [these provisions] were never meant to be a loophole or a matter of convenience that high-priced lawyers can reach for in order to keep their clients out of jail," Phillip told The Province Friday.

"So I think in that regard, this is a miscarriage of those provisions in the justice system."

a recent court decision states Robinson doesn't have to show any negative effects from being native, it is assumed.

Update:  To use Kate McMillan's tag line - Not Waiting for the Asteroid - Did you know that the young man killed in the Monty Robinson incident was, according to the coroner, speeding excessively and drunk when he hit Robinson's vehicle?  I bet you didn't and I wonder why...

If you don’t favour a ban on private ownership of shotguns, you’re a fucking idiot

Yes Warren, I'm talking to you.  You own a gun and I bet you don't favour banning it.  But if only the US had banned pump shotguns the Joker wouldn't have been nearly as effective killing people in Colorado.  We know this because our friends in Australia have banned all pump shotguns. 

You might think that is reductio ad absurdum but it's not like I made those things up about Australia.  Britain has banned all handguns but they have still had a massive increase of  "gun violence".  It's not like Britain has a porous border with the US, they're a freaking island  and they can't prevent gangs from getting and using handguns!  Germany has stiff gun control and they, too, suffer mass shootings.  So what makes Kinsella think banning already severely restricted handguns will help?  Read this and see:

I’m a gun owner. I don’t think hand guns are needed to hunt. They’re designed to do one thing: kill people. That’s it. My suggestion is this: let’s try something new, and ban handguns. If that doesn’t work, you can go back to your proud old conservative tradition of doing absolutely nothing, and letting children get murdered, okay?”

And there you have it.  We don't "need" hand guns so let's ban them and see.  Let's steal a few billion in legally owned property from Canadians who have jumped through all the government set hoops in order to buy that property and see if that helps.  And if it doesn't, well I guess we can always unmelt those guns, right?

Not exactly.  Kinsella, like Chretien before, doesn't actually plan to seize and melt all those guns.  No, all Kinsella wants for him and his boy, McGuinty, is to do something, anything really, to be seen as doing something.  That's the Liberal answer to everything, really.  From Kyoto to gun control to drug policy the Liberals don't care what they do as long as they do something.   When they "banned" 50% of the legally owned handguns in Canada in the early 90's you might be surprised to know they didn't really ban them so much as make them even more inconvenient for owners.  They're still there, though, the evil small calibre and small size pistols sitting in safes across Canada waiting to be stolen by the gang bangers.  They can't be sold except to other guys who own those guns but they can be inherited by children so they might never go away.  Banning them was never about keeping them off the streets or preventing their theft by gangs.  It was a publicity stunt at the expense of those who don't usually vote Liberal anyway.

You see, it was never about safety, it was about doing anything to be seen as doing something.  The guns were banned but not seized and that gives the lie to Kinsella's new ban.  The guns will still be there if he gets his way because he and his ilk don't have the guts to actually face the Canadian public and say they have spent ten billion dollars compensating gun owners for stealing their property and they don't have the guts to face gun owners and take their property without compensation.  We might actually object to that and guess what?  We have guns!  No, it's all just a paper tiger in the name of "trying something new".  Well, everything old is new again, I guess.

Andrew Coyne - Missing the Point Again

Andrew Coyne wants to install chips in your head and track you so the government can tax you for moving.  Well, Almost. What he really wants is to track your cars by GPS and then tax you based on how far you drive.  That's how you reduce congestion when you live in an ivory tower, I guess.

Well, way to miss the point, Andrew!  Ask yourself, why do people drive?  To get where they are going, of course!  People would drive less if they lived closer to where they were going.  The answer isn't new roads or more obstructionist "traffic calming", nor more transit.  The answer is density.  The problem is the cities where people need to get to in order to work don't want the kind of density necessary to house all the people who want to live there.

Vancouver has very little density and an urban plan that basically bans it.  They talk about laneway housing, secondary suites, and basement suites. Where are the plans for 40 story apartment buildings?  Instead of building real density Vancouver calls for "Eco-density" which basically means a non-plan status quo in a city where a 3 bedroom condo can't be had for less than $350,000.  There is just no room for families.

The fact is people drive because they cannot afford a 3 or 4 bedroom house or apartment close to where they work.  Families are forced to move to the suburbs and endure longer and longer commutes because big cities, mostly run by left-leaning councils, will not let land owners profit from development inside "the ring".   The city of Vancouver is stalling an Aquilini development proposal because it does nothing for drug addicts, errr, I mean "poor people".  The city wants the developer to subsidize low cost rentals for unemployed addicts but will not allow high densities which would bring down prices enough for middle class families.  It's all about priorities and the current Vision/COPE council's priorities are social housing, not the breeders in the 'burbs.

When it comes to traffic it's simply NIMBYism.  All the city core dwellers want is for the poor schmucks to stop driving, they don't care how that is done, just so long as the breeders stay out of their hip, trendy neighbourhoods.

Shocking!

Here I was almost believing what my betters in the Liberal party and NDP have been telling me, that the Israelis are racist Jews who hate Arabs and oppress them.  I am shocked to find that Arab Israelis (Arab Israelis??  There are Arab Israelis!) will soon lose their exemption from being drafted into the army.  So the racist Jews are going to force poor Arab Israelis into the army now?   Dear god, that's terrible!  Making citizens of Israel help in the common defence!  And Orthodox Jews, too!

Ok, so that's just a bit of sarcasm but I do wonder how our left-of-centre friends square that circle.  There are Arab members of the Knesset, Arabs in the Israeli military, Arabs with all the rights of Jews.  What's up with that, lefties?

I Don't Understand

I am watching CNN and I unable to understand the thinking processes of these reporters.  The Libyans just overthrew Ghaddafi, violently.  They were able to overthrow their oppressive government because they had the guns.  Without guns they would have been slaughtered.  Now they are working towards their first election.  So what's the first thing these reporters say needs to be done in order to ensure a smooth transition to democracy?

Get rid of the guns!

Seriously!  They just fought a fucking revolution and these morons on CNN think the best way to ensure good government is the remove the ability to fight a future revolution!

Update:  I remember why I gave up on CNN - A commercial for Erin Burnett came on and the first words she said were "I became a journalist because I wanted to make a difference..."

Really?  Is that what journalism is now?  Here I thought journalists strove to tell the truth about the news.  Now I remember today's journalists "want to make a difference."

This is a Little Bit Better . . .

Free Speech is the foundation of democracy.  Without it there is no way for people to express any opinion that might affect the votes of citizens.  We restrict free speech in ways that make sense such as libel and slander, although I think Canada's laws are too strict on those. We also restrict speech where it causes immediate harm to another person, such a the hackneyed "fire in a theatre".  I personally think we go too far when we equate the harm of being trampled to death with the harm caused by racists and bigots.  Causation is obvious in the first and it's hard to argue the theatre isn't ablaze during a stampede.  However, the harm is not obvious with racist speech and we have the ability and the duty to refute such arguments.

Obviously, I think the kangaroo courts otherwise known a human rights commissions are an atrocity against the most basic freedoms we have.  The courts are a little better because at least truth is a defence there.  How 1984 is it that truth is not a defence in an HRC  hearing?  Well, this story at least restores a tiny bit of faith in the system:

White supremacist can seek help online in attempt to prove racist claims: court

The court has said that truth is defence and that Mr. Tremaine is allowed to seek evidence of the truth of his statements.  Statements like "Jews are a “parasitic race,” that “blacks are intellectually inferior to whites” and “Hitler was a lot nicer to the Jews than they deserved.”".

What a concept it is to let the truth decide his guilt!  While I still think this guy should be allowed to say whatever he likes until he says, directly, "Kill the Jews!" At that point he is inciting violence and I think criminalizing that is a reasonable restriction on speech.  I am happier, still, to see that Canadian judges have enough confidence in rational society to let this guy argue the ridiculous and have the crown refute it.

That is a little bit better.

Sentences Should Fit the Crime

 A while ago I was rather incensed at a new sentencing ruling put forth that said judges should not impose sentences longer than the expected life span of the convicted.  I think it's just another ridiculous ruling that has no real meaning other than old people now get the same discount on crime that aboriginals, women and minorities get.  I mean, if you're 75 and male you're living on borrowed time according to life expectancy stats so does that mean you get no jail time at all?  Because any sentence at that age is a life sentence.  And if you are 55 and commit first degree murder do we strike down the required 25 years as cruel punishment?

Sometimes I think Canada's "justice" system is a lost cause so it is very refreshing to see the Americans know how to deal with crime. Jim Sandusky raped at least 10 boys over a number of years at Penn State and in his home.  He is 65 years old.  In Canada his sentence would be a Graham James-like 2 years.  In the US he is getting a minimum of 60 and up to 400 years.  There is no bulk discount down there, you pay for each crime.  He will die in prison.  He may even find out what it's like to be on the receiving end in the shower.  That is justice.

The "Right" to Assisted Suicide.

Once again we see that if at first you don't succeed, try try again.  And again. And again. Because, you see, once you get a yes they can never say no again.  

It's not like assisted suicide would ever be abused.

The Tree of Liberty

“Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.”
― Thomas Jefferson

That's a good quote.  I'd shorten it slightly. 

Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with blood.    
-- The Rat

I say that because we have become such a risk averse nation that we consistently trample on Liberty in order to avoid injury.  Here in British Columbia our Liberal overlords, Premier Green Jeans and Premier Mom, have each enacted legislation that severely limits our Liberty in pursuit of a risk-free world.  Examples of that legislation are:

• Drunk Driving legislation reducing the threshold for penalties from .08 to .05.
• Speeding laws that allow the confiscation of vehicles for speeding 40km over the limit
• Body armour restrictions
• The newer motorcycle helmet laws

I could go on but I hope you see my point.  When our government starts to infringe on our rights as citizens in order to protect us from ourselves we are on a very slippery slope.  Absurdly, the drunk driving legislation  has been declared unconstitutional if you are over .08 as your right to a trial BEFORE punishment for a criminal offence has been breached.  However, if you are between .05 and .08 those same roadside punishments are apparently perfectly OK.

Obviously there are those who can justify these laws.  Alexa's law, as the drunk driving law is called, is an example of some truly misguided thinking.  The idea that people with blood alcohol between ,05 and .08 are the problem is absurd.  It is the heavy drinking, alcoholic types who consistently drive well above the .08 level that are the threat, even after we take away their drivers licence.  Yet, deaths in BC are down!  Yay!  Right?  Well, no, not to me.  Deaths are down because people, average people who might have drunk too much, again well past .08, are choosing not to drink at all for fear of running foul of this law.  But so what?  We know from many examples that when you enact draconian laws with no right of appeal you will change people's behaviour.  That doesn't make it right.

Worse, though, are laws that force individuals to take steps to protect themselves.  Helmet laws are just that.  What business is it of government's whether I engage in risky behaviour or not?  The rationale is always "because we all pay your medical bills".  But what kind of argument is that?  Can I opt out of socialized medicine?  Will we restrict all other risky activities?  We've already heard many academics argue for banning things like trans-fats, sugary snacks, and even sugar itself.  We have people who argue that some groups' sexual activities are risky.  So where is the line?  It keeps getting pushed a little further with each government.

I am quite serious when I say that Liberty must be watered with blood.  Sure, it may be the blood of idiots who would rather not wear a helmet, or even the blood of innocents killed by speeders.  There is risk in life but when we legislate to reduce risk we may save some lives but the cost in freedom is going to be very high.

A Liberal Complaining About Voting Irregularities?

Boris Buy-A-Vowel has apparently won a court decision overturning his loss in last May's Federal election because, shockingly, people were able to vote more than once and some were improperly identified!

The current law is open to gross abuse yet when governments try to address this it seems Liberals and Dippers flip out. How ironic is it that Boris is now fighting to overturn an election based on improper ID.  If only we had done what us Conservatives wanted this would never have happened.

Oh, and I've got a fiver that any voting irregularities went in his favour.  Signing up ineligible voters is a leftish speciality.

Happy Mother's Day

I have two children, both adopted, and both "unwanted" except by their birthmothers, or at least they both ignored strong family pressure to have abortions. Both birth mothers had serious problems, one drugs and the other mental illness. Both my children are at risk of complications in their life because of it. My wife and I had to choose, with as full a knowledge as possible, to parent these two.

I am deeply saddened when healthy parents choose to abort healthy children because it is financially difficult. Our family is in financial difficulties because of the choice we made to have children, but our finances will get better and we have two wonderful children who will be with us for the rest of our lives. Some say we "bought" our children, and if so it was the best purchase we ever made and every day I am grateful to the two mothers who made a choice that let two wonderful kids live.

Jan Wong is Depressed - How sad...

While I don't have much sympathy for Warren Kinsella's complaint about Jan Wong, oh he of the Barney reference and the well placed picture, I do agree that Jan Wong is quite a piece of work.  How unsurprising then to learn that Heather Mallick is a friend and an admirer of her's.  Oh, how sad it is that poor Jan Wong was persecuted by the evil management-types and MPs for a slight against Canada's unslightable province.  (and how delicious in that it's probably the only thing she ever wrote that I agree with!).

Mallick writes of that persecution:

"... and in an event that is so purely Stalinist I still cannot quite believe it."

Still, what a relief it must have been for Ms. Wong that it wasn't Maoist or they might have disappeared her...

John Reynolds Doesn't Speak for Me

John Reynolds says:

“Those of us who are conservatives are going to make sure that everyone on the conservative side will be with us,” he said. “(John) Cummins may not be on board, but the voters will be.”

 And he also says this:

"We've got a premier [Christy Clark] who's doing a good job and we've got a province that's just got [its] Triple A [credit] rating. Not too many provinces are as well off as we are. We can't afford an NDP government, so we've got to get together."

 Well John, this Conservatives begs to differ.  I am most definitely not "on board" and I most certainly don't think Premier Mom is doing a good job, nor is her party.

This is not just about the economy.  I am less concerned about the economy as I am about the erosion of basic freedom under our social engineering Liberal overlords.  Legislation by lobbyist is just bad policy and I don't see the Liberals having the balls to say no to the utterly mad MADD lobbyists, nor the truly sick minds at the Canadian Cancer Society.  I could go on but the point is simple, that economic success in a society that consistently breaches fundamental rights is not a society I want.  The Liberal party can change its name but until it changes its nanny-state ideology I will not be voting for it.

How to Win an Argument With Yourself

The Bionic Liberal?  It's so easy to win an argument with your imaginary foe when you don't allow comments...

Just a snippet:

Inquisitor: If abortions had been legal, you might never have been born.

Me: So?

Inquisitor: Well, you would never have existed. Anti-abortion laws saved your life.

Me: Let's follow your line of reasoning and say I don't exist. If I don't exist then I can't care whether I might potentially exist or not because, well, I'm not here.

Inquisitor: That's not the point.

Me: How can I have an opinion on something if I don't exist?

Let me finish this argument for him/her/it (I didn't bother to read its profile and I wouldn't want to insult it by using the wrong progressive-acceptable pronoun)

Inquisitor: Bang!!!!  Ok, you're dead now.  You don't exist.  I assume you don't care, right?  What's that, you can't answer me because you don't exist?  Argument won!

We prosecute murderers not because the person they murdered cares, they're dead after-all, we prosecute murder because killing someone is wrong.  Abortion is wrong, especially in a society where so many options for responsible birth control exist.  Heck, I'll even go so far as to accept early abortions, wrong as I feel they are.  But to argue that abortion is OK because the babies killed don't exist now, well, that argument has a bit of a flaw...

(and there's another flaw in the straw argument.  The Inquisitor feels the baby did exist, he wouldn't state something so obviously flawed as "...you would never have existed".)

Death Penalty Hypocrisy

Juxtapose these two men, Hamid Ghassemi-Shall and Ronald Smith, and ask yourself why our government might discriminate between the two.  The media and our bureaucratic betters tell us the Conservatives are bad to pick and choose whom to expend valuable political and monetary treasure on.  Even the courts tell us we must support all Canadians on death row.  The first is going to be executed as a spy by a regime notorious for unjust convictions and politically motivated executions while the second is an admitted multiple murderer who killed to see what it was like.  Now why on earth we would want to pick and choose between those two?