Just wanted to let everyone know that this is going to be one of very few family partying weekends for me, so the blogging may be slightly infrequent until Tuesday. In the meantime, it is Gay Pride weekend in Toronto, so I'll have lots to blog about regarding that. If you're in the city, check it out! Quite frankly, I think it's disgusting. And that's not because I hate gay people, like you're ignorantly assuming. In fact, if I were a gay person I'd probably despise this weekend even more. It's like being proud of who you are, and then going out and playing into the stereotype and beyond. Naked guys swinging their, uh, stuff, around at bystanders, and naked girls making out in the streets in front of little children. I can assure you that this does NOT represent the whole of the gay community. It's simply an embarassment (or so I hear and agree with). And of course the government eats it up and commends it through clenched teeth, for the tourism revenue it brings in.
While I'm 'on break,' check out some other great blogs, like this, this and this! Or this.
Anyway, have a fantastic weekend, and I'll be back on Tuesday (or before then if I get a chance) to talk about this wacky country's birthday, and how we've let it move so far away from what it was supposed to become.
HAPPY SATURDAY!
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Good news for our freedom to speak!
The complaint against Maclean's magazine and Mark Steyn was dismissed! Kind of dissapointing, in that Steyn didn't get to further the case in what would have been nothing short of extreme entertainment...but probably a good thing, none the less. According to Elmasry and the puppets, the complaint was dismissed due to "inappropriate political pressure." What I find interesting is that, if Maclean's and Steyn hadn't won, they would have taken the case to the Federal court. Now that the kvetchies are the losers in the case, THEY are "considering" taking it to the Federal court. Apparently, they weren't "satisfied" with the "opportunity (they) had to present (their) case to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal." Because nearly a week of wasting everyones' time in a completely irrelevant pretend trial wasn't enough. What a joke.
This was all fun and entertaining (and scary) when it started, but if these people drag this on any longer, I'm going to be pretty pissed. I think everyone is tired of your raping our wacko systems and using them against us by now, thanks.
...
There are two other articles on the "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" page in the Post today. One is delightful. The other, not so much. So let's get to the bad news first. Apparently, "An Ottawa-based franco-Ontarian band is booked to play Canada Day celebrations in Gatineau's Jacques Cartier Park despite the fact one of the group's new songs features such lyrics as "English pig" and tete carre, a term viewed by some anglophones as a racist slur." While this band has every right to say what they want to say, and their being allowed to say it is a credit to their freedom of speech, why the hell are they playing at a Canada Day concert?! "We think the majority of Canadians are pigs." Well isn't that patriotic? Fitting, I suppose, for the eminent self-loathing of this country. But hardly what I'd want to hear when I was celebrating the birth and beauty of my country!
...
Now, for the good news. Vancouver radio host Rafe Mair was dismissed on accusations of defamation, after comparing Kari Simpson, a public figure of whom I've never heard, to Hitler and some KKK dudes because of her anti-gay sentiments. Hey, if someone hated me (oh, how hypothetical.....) because I was Jewish, I'd probably compare them to Hitler. So why can't he do the same? We can all sleep soundly tonight, knowing that someone was actually allowed to uphold his freedom of speech. Mind you, he WAS for the left in this one..
This was all fun and entertaining (and scary) when it started, but if these people drag this on any longer, I'm going to be pretty pissed. I think everyone is tired of your raping our wacko systems and using them against us by now, thanks.
...
There are two other articles on the "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" page in the Post today. One is delightful. The other, not so much. So let's get to the bad news first. Apparently, "An Ottawa-based franco-Ontarian band is booked to play Canada Day celebrations in Gatineau's Jacques Cartier Park despite the fact one of the group's new songs features such lyrics as "English pig" and tete carre, a term viewed by some anglophones as a racist slur." While this band has every right to say what they want to say, and their being allowed to say it is a credit to their freedom of speech, why the hell are they playing at a Canada Day concert?! "We think the majority of Canadians are pigs." Well isn't that patriotic? Fitting, I suppose, for the eminent self-loathing of this country. But hardly what I'd want to hear when I was celebrating the birth and beauty of my country!
...
Now, for the good news. Vancouver radio host Rafe Mair was dismissed on accusations of defamation, after comparing Kari Simpson, a public figure of whom I've never heard, to Hitler and some KKK dudes because of her anti-gay sentiments. Hey, if someone hated me (oh, how hypothetical.....) because I was Jewish, I'd probably compare them to Hitler. So why can't he do the same? We can all sleep soundly tonight, knowing that someone was actually allowed to uphold his freedom of speech. Mind you, he WAS for the left in this one..
Another good Coren article
And another shame for the leftist media, this time in a different sort of form. "Faceless, anonymous creatures representing something vaguely dark and persecuting. Bad guys." How's that for anti-Semitic?
Give it a read. Much like his other articles, it's well worth it.
Give it a read. Much like his other articles, it's well worth it.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Brass Balls Daily Video Feed: June 27th, 2008
A FRIDAY TREAT! :)
This site is hilarious. Check it out.
(also beneficial if you're looking to convert to Islam)
TRUTH!
Shalom.
This site is hilarious. Check it out.
(also beneficial if you're looking to convert to Islam)
TRUTH!
Shalom.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
More "man-made global warming" garbage
A friend of mine sent me this for a laugh. There are so many things listed on this website, with so few facts to back it all up. It's kind of like, it's written down, so it's gotta be true. Hmm...kinda like global warming, itself! Faaaaantastic.
My favourite line has got to be the very first and second. And I kid you not..
.....
Global Warming Myths and Facts
MYTH
The science of global warming is too uncertain to act on.
FACT
There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming.
.....
No numbers. No facts here, folks. All it says is that "The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it,"...that is their proof. If these kooks did do their research, on the other hand, they would discover that there are thousands of very reputable scientists that DENY (dun, dun, dun) and disprove "man-made global warming." I strongly reccomend that all of you check out The Great Global Warming Swindle, if you haven't already, for the facts--straight from the scientists. According to the 'writers' at Sympatico msn Green, they aren't the "most respected," but I think their numerous degrees and fantastic reputations will prove otherwise.
My favourite line has got to be the very first and second. And I kid you not..
.....
Global Warming Myths and Facts
MYTH
The science of global warming is too uncertain to act on.
FACT
There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming.
.....
No numbers. No facts here, folks. All it says is that "The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it,"...that is their proof. If these kooks did do their research, on the other hand, they would discover that there are thousands of very reputable scientists that DENY (dun, dun, dun) and disprove "man-made global warming." I strongly reccomend that all of you check out The Great Global Warming Swindle, if you haven't already, for the facts--straight from the scientists. According to the 'writers' at Sympatico msn Green, they aren't the "most respected," but I think their numerous degrees and fantastic reputations will prove otherwise.
But everyone always does the right thing...honest!
Ah, the age-old argument. Would our society be as moral if it were not for the religious (Judeo-Christian) influence when it was founded? Some people staunchly argue, despite whatever evidence you present to them, that our society would be just as moral if it were not founded upon a set of Judeo-Christian values. This may be true, but how are we to know? The fact is, it wasn't. The form of government that (was) established in our society granted rights and freedoms to all citizens, but the need for laws that bind us is still recognized and very present. It is a fact that these laws were based on religious values. One can realize this by simply skimming the 10 Commandments. Unfortunately these freedoms are quickly slipping through the Islamo-cracks, but it is undeniable that the foundation of our society is Judeo-Christian based. Still, reader Alex argues that this is not the case.
For a more detailed look at the argument, check out the original that started it all.
My favourite part of any magazine or newspaper is when two people debate in writing. So, for your reading enjoyment..
.....
Alex said...
Cute :)
The difference is that I was obviously being facetious. You had stated that the "ingrained values of our society" must stem from a religious basis, and I was pointing out the fallaciousness of your argument. I didn't actually think that you really believed that atheists are amoral.
I do apologize if I've offended you, though. That was not my intention.
Anyway, since you seem to have missed my meaning, let me ask in a more straightforward manner:
If you believe that morality must have it's basis in religion, how do you explain the fact that the same concepts of morality exist within all cultures, regardless of their beliefs?
Also, how do you explain the immoral conduct of medieval Europe, at a time when the Christian religion enjoyed a much larger and more dedicated following?
More importantly, what evidence do you have to suggest that western values stem from religion? Are the 10 commandments your sole "evidence"? If so, do you not realize how ridiculously poor that evidence is? Have you read the REST of the bible?
I don't expect you to answer every single one of those questions, but I am curious to see how you'll chose to defend your previous assertion. I look forward to your response :)
June 24, 2008 1:14 PM
The Girl in Blue said...
This 'argument' is becoming rather patronizing and tiring, and I don't choose to defend a point that is obviously true any longer. If you truly believe that our laws weren't based on religiously-installed values, then so be it. If you truly don't believe that we, in large part, act the way we do and restrain ourselves from doing much wrong because of our laws, then so be it. If those two things don't make an obvious connection between our society's ingrained values and the religious influence on the founding of our society, well, that's a shame.
I think that if you look at many societies in the world, you will notice that they do not have the same moral base that ours does. For example, in many Islamic societies, a woman will be killed if a man rapes her, because it is believed that "she asked for it." In our society, that would be considered beyond sickening. Granted, early Judeo-Christian establishment is rather chauvenistic, but there is a peaceful element that overcomes that.
There have been times in history when man--not religion--has acted badly, even when religion was present in his society. This is not the fault of the religious foundations of the society. This is the fault of man and his corruption of power, allowed because of the form of government. We, as a society, have established a form of government that (did) allow much freedom among the citizens, while still maintaining the importance of laws that bind us (laws based on religious values). Although this society that we have come to know and love is quickly dissipating, you cannot argue that it was not originally founded upon a set of Judeo-Christian values.
I have, in fact, read the REST of the bible, and I realize that there is much violence within it. I also realize, however, that the bible/Torah is a collection of stories, much like fables in that they all have 'morals,' that are meant to show man the difference between right and wrong, and what will presumably happen to him if he breaks from doing 'right.'
My proof of our society being based on Judeo-Christian values is not solely the ten commandments, but the undeniable connection between them and our laws is a big part of it. Remember, the rest of the bible/Torah matters as well, but the reason you and probably everyone KNOWS the ten commandments is because they are one of the most important and relevant parts of the Book.
And to clarify, I did not "miss your meaning." I just believe that you are making a silly, obviously incorrect argument. Perhaps morality would exist without religion. It probably would. But my argument is not counter to that. I am simply stating that our society was founded on religious values, which it was.
June 25, 2008 2:10 PM
For a more detailed look at the argument, check out the original that started it all.
My favourite part of any magazine or newspaper is when two people debate in writing. So, for your reading enjoyment..
.....
Alex said...
Cute :)
The difference is that I was obviously being facetious. You had stated that the "ingrained values of our society" must stem from a religious basis, and I was pointing out the fallaciousness of your argument. I didn't actually think that you really believed that atheists are amoral.
I do apologize if I've offended you, though. That was not my intention.
Anyway, since you seem to have missed my meaning, let me ask in a more straightforward manner:
If you believe that morality must have it's basis in religion, how do you explain the fact that the same concepts of morality exist within all cultures, regardless of their beliefs?
Also, how do you explain the immoral conduct of medieval Europe, at a time when the Christian religion enjoyed a much larger and more dedicated following?
More importantly, what evidence do you have to suggest that western values stem from religion? Are the 10 commandments your sole "evidence"? If so, do you not realize how ridiculously poor that evidence is? Have you read the REST of the bible?
I don't expect you to answer every single one of those questions, but I am curious to see how you'll chose to defend your previous assertion. I look forward to your response :)
June 24, 2008 1:14 PM
The Girl in Blue said...
This 'argument' is becoming rather patronizing and tiring, and I don't choose to defend a point that is obviously true any longer. If you truly believe that our laws weren't based on religiously-installed values, then so be it. If you truly don't believe that we, in large part, act the way we do and restrain ourselves from doing much wrong because of our laws, then so be it. If those two things don't make an obvious connection between our society's ingrained values and the religious influence on the founding of our society, well, that's a shame.
I think that if you look at many societies in the world, you will notice that they do not have the same moral base that ours does. For example, in many Islamic societies, a woman will be killed if a man rapes her, because it is believed that "she asked for it." In our society, that would be considered beyond sickening. Granted, early Judeo-Christian establishment is rather chauvenistic, but there is a peaceful element that overcomes that.
There have been times in history when man--not religion--has acted badly, even when religion was present in his society. This is not the fault of the religious foundations of the society. This is the fault of man and his corruption of power, allowed because of the form of government. We, as a society, have established a form of government that (did) allow much freedom among the citizens, while still maintaining the importance of laws that bind us (laws based on religious values). Although this society that we have come to know and love is quickly dissipating, you cannot argue that it was not originally founded upon a set of Judeo-Christian values.
I have, in fact, read the REST of the bible, and I realize that there is much violence within it. I also realize, however, that the bible/Torah is a collection of stories, much like fables in that they all have 'morals,' that are meant to show man the difference between right and wrong, and what will presumably happen to him if he breaks from doing 'right.'
My proof of our society being based on Judeo-Christian values is not solely the ten commandments, but the undeniable connection between them and our laws is a big part of it. Remember, the rest of the bible/Torah matters as well, but the reason you and probably everyone KNOWS the ten commandments is because they are one of the most important and relevant parts of the Book.
And to clarify, I did not "miss your meaning." I just believe that you are making a silly, obviously incorrect argument. Perhaps morality would exist without religion. It probably would. But my argument is not counter to that. I am simply stating that our society was founded on religious values, which it was.
June 25, 2008 2:10 PM
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Brass Balls Daily Video Feed: June 23rd, 2008
With a special guest host ;)
The advertisement at the start is a little long. Wait it out..!
The advertisement at the start is a little long. Wait it out..!
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Free-speaking Halifax prof strikes again
Mark Mercer, our favourite philosophy prof at Saint Mary's University in Halifax, wrote an exceptional article for the Ottawa Citizen, that stresses the need to abolish section 13. My favourite part:
.....
"What we want is for each of us to be a self-respecting, secure individual. But a commission that seeks to protect us from hurtful words and from slights to what we hold dear would stand between us and our self respect and security. It would transform us into victims, cowering before the mere words of another. It would interfere with our finding our voice.
Someone ridicules your religion or maligns your race? Let's hope nothing gets in the way of your growing up so that you can respond how a grownup would respond -- by answering him, or by ignoring him."
.....
Um, yeah! Grow up, people! People write things on my blog DAILY that are far worse than anything the muslims in the Steyn case had to endure. I was told I should have been purged in the Holocaust! They were told that they were extremely fertile. Okay, okay. They were told a little bit more than that. But Mercer makes an excellent point. The role of the CHRC eliminates our role as grown-ups. Instead of maturely handling criticism by challenging it or ignoring it, people can run off to the CHRC and cry to mommy about it until they get whatever they want (in the form of a lump sum and some stripping of rights). This feeds further into Canada's victim population. We're either feeling sorry for ourselves or guilty about someone else feeling sorry about themselves. And there's always a tax-dollary way to repair the sorrow, thanks to our feed-the-loser-demographic government, and your hard-earned cash.
One thing I like about Mercer is that he's addressing the issues in a very rational, very philisophical way. Most of the people challenging the CHRC problem in Canada are collar-pullers; in-your-face writers like Steyn and many of the bloggers you undoubtedly frequent. Of course what this issue needs, in order to gain the attention necessary to shed light on it, is collar-pullers. But having a few university professors on board doesn't hurt either. Especially ones who work at SMU. I'm secretly fearing for his job.
.....
"It's hard to see how people can be harmed -- actually harmed -- by words. People can be harmed by actions, actions caused by words, but the task then is to protect people from actions. Words can offend or belittle, of course, but adults should be resilient enough not to allow offence or ridicule to mutate into harm."
.....
Like Ezra said, 6 million Jews did not die because of words. They died because of actions. Events such as these have shown us that we need to fight back, if only through words, to overcome them. We do not need to silence them all together. After all, silencing is how the Holocaust started in the first place.
Another great point that is addressed is the fact that, if one balances the good and the bad of the CHRCs, one will find that the bad far outweighs the good. (Look at me, getting all university-style essay on you! Sorry.) Sure, a few crybabies (and their massive families) will benefit from the money and rights stripped from the pretend defendants, but in the long run, the role of the CHRC in our society WEAKENS our society, and weakens the individual (one in the same?). Not only do these phony court cases break down the foundation of our society by letting way too much slide; they also slowly but surely--and more quickly than expected, actually--tear your rights away from you.
I say: hold tight to your rights. The only way to deal with them being taken away is kicking and screaming. And although his kicks may not be as hard, I'm glad Mercer is screaming.
.....
"What we want is for each of us to be a self-respecting, secure individual. But a commission that seeks to protect us from hurtful words and from slights to what we hold dear would stand between us and our self respect and security. It would transform us into victims, cowering before the mere words of another. It would interfere with our finding our voice.
Someone ridicules your religion or maligns your race? Let's hope nothing gets in the way of your growing up so that you can respond how a grownup would respond -- by answering him, or by ignoring him."
.....
Um, yeah! Grow up, people! People write things on my blog DAILY that are far worse than anything the muslims in the Steyn case had to endure. I was told I should have been purged in the Holocaust! They were told that they were extremely fertile. Okay, okay. They were told a little bit more than that. But Mercer makes an excellent point. The role of the CHRC eliminates our role as grown-ups. Instead of maturely handling criticism by challenging it or ignoring it, people can run off to the CHRC and cry to mommy about it until they get whatever they want (in the form of a lump sum and some stripping of rights). This feeds further into Canada's victim population. We're either feeling sorry for ourselves or guilty about someone else feeling sorry about themselves. And there's always a tax-dollary way to repair the sorrow, thanks to our feed-the-loser-demographic government, and your hard-earned cash.
One thing I like about Mercer is that he's addressing the issues in a very rational, very philisophical way. Most of the people challenging the CHRC problem in Canada are collar-pullers; in-your-face writers like Steyn and many of the bloggers you undoubtedly frequent. Of course what this issue needs, in order to gain the attention necessary to shed light on it, is collar-pullers. But having a few university professors on board doesn't hurt either. Especially ones who work at SMU. I'm secretly fearing for his job.
.....
"It's hard to see how people can be harmed -- actually harmed -- by words. People can be harmed by actions, actions caused by words, but the task then is to protect people from actions. Words can offend or belittle, of course, but adults should be resilient enough not to allow offence or ridicule to mutate into harm."
.....
Like Ezra said, 6 million Jews did not die because of words. They died because of actions. Events such as these have shown us that we need to fight back, if only through words, to overcome them. We do not need to silence them all together. After all, silencing is how the Holocaust started in the first place.
Another great point that is addressed is the fact that, if one balances the good and the bad of the CHRCs, one will find that the bad far outweighs the good. (Look at me, getting all university-style essay on you! Sorry.) Sure, a few crybabies (and their massive families) will benefit from the money and rights stripped from the pretend defendants, but in the long run, the role of the CHRC in our society WEAKENS our society, and weakens the individual (one in the same?). Not only do these phony court cases break down the foundation of our society by letting way too much slide; they also slowly but surely--and more quickly than expected, actually--tear your rights away from you.
I say: hold tight to your rights. The only way to deal with them being taken away is kicking and screaming. And although his kicks may not be as hard, I'm glad Mercer is screaming.
Friday, June 20, 2008
This is called tooting my own horn
Although I'm sure you already all check the Brass Balls Radio site daily, I'm just reminding you to check it out, maybe, two or three times per day from Monday to Friday this coming week. Of course we'll all miss Wendy's voice terribly, but she'll be back soon. In the meantime, there will be a special guest doing the daily video feeds, and you'll definitely want to check it out.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Plenty of little mosques on the prairie
This just in:
"Saskatchewan to implement Islam-based schools."
...I would say "it begins," but really, it just creeps on.
"Saskatchewan to implement Islam-based schools."
...I would say "it begins," but really, it just creeps on.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Ezra Levant in Toronto (and the apocalyptic storm that followed)
A little late, but I had to write a little bit about the day I had yesterday. A trip into Toronto's old financial district to see Ezra Levant speak about free speech (and schmooze with other blogging tories), followed by an apocalyptic hailstorm. Quite the Monday afternoon!
Upon entering the conference room in which Levant was to speak, many family events were brought to mind. Party sandwiches, pant suits and lots of older-than-I-am Jews...it was like a seder without the prayer! Funny that Ezra was on the same mindset: "I strategically forgot all of our suitcases in Alberta, so I had to buy a new suit. So here I am, in a new suit, kind of nervous, standing up in front of a lot of people.. It's like my bar mitzvah!" By "our," he meant he and his wife and new baby daughter. To answer your question, yes. She was absolutely adorable.
Ezra couldn't have been a better speaker...although I may be giving him extra credit for tying policy/political debate into Jewish history, which pretty much encompasses my entire area of interest. By far the most moving of all historic ties was his reminder to us all that the Nazis began their terror by burning books (and ended it with burning people). We cannot let the HRCs--or anyone, for that matter--burn our books now. Because we know where that leads: the deterioration of our rights. The Jews were stripped of their rights to speak, before they were stripped of their lives.
Another highlight of the speech was the question period, in which Leo Adler from the Simon Wiesenthal Center took a good chunk of time to correct Levant on a few things he was actually right about. A question was never actually asked, but we all got a good chuckle out of it. Especially when Ezra kept referencing Leo every chance he got. It was suggested, with great feedback, that Leo and Ezra have a public debate, but according to Wendy, he said he wouldn't ever debate a liar. Even if Ezra Levant was a liar, wouldn't he be the first you'd want to debate? Catch him in a lie? I guess Leo just doesn't want to look like a total idiot in public again. Hey, I feel for the guy. I sure wouldn't want to be debating Ezra Levant. He's kind of known for chewing people up and spitting them up, with an audience there to laugh at it all. But Leo probably shouldn't have started kvetching at all, especially if he won't finish it up for all of us crazy, free-speech-loving eager beavers.
The speech was absolutely fabulous. And I hope you all caught Levant again on Micheal Coren tonight!
On my way home from Toronto, I was caught in what I thought was an apocaplyptic hailstorm. Our car suffered $5000 damage from these golfball-sized ice pellets. My friend even called her mom to say goodbye. I actually thought that the world was ending with this storm. Needless to say, the world is still intact, but it wouldn't have been a bad day to go.
Ezra Levant on Coren - Discussing the decay of your freedom
Just caught Ezra Levant on the Micheal Coren show. I was obviously glued to the screen for the entire hour (even the commercials that all played like 4 times). In short, it was two clever men talking lightly enough about how our fundamental rights and freedoms are in jeopardy because of phony courts that have the ability to utlilize the power of the real courts to convict "maybe-they'll-be-criminals-in-the-future's," which in turn wears away at the foundations of our very society, rendering us powerless and stripped of the freedom to open our mouths. Delightful!
One of my favourite parts was when Micheal pointed out that many leftists see this issue as a battle of the political sides of the spectrum. Both men asserted that this is not the case at all. Neither care whether you're wrong--er, left, or right. This isn't about that. This isn't a bunch of bible-thumping Republican types ranting on about the HRCs, dabbling in little lies along the way in an attempt to ice to their white and blue free speech plea cake. (See, Canadian Cynic? I can list off dumb stereotypes and pass it off as a blog, too!)
No, this is an issue that affects everyone. We just happened to catch on first. But most of you have an excuse, as your heads were buried somewhere far up your bottoms. Many people are choosing to be stubborn now, based undoutably on shabby pretend principles, if everyone doesn't recognize how important this issue is--and soon--we're all going to pay the price. Levant pointed out that it isn't even the Conservatives who thrive off the freedom to speech as much as the Liberals do. Womens' rights, Black rights, Gay rights... They were all achieved by means of free speech!
Quoting an unknown both yesterday and today, Ezra asserted, "Take away all of my rights except for free speech, because it is with that one that I can win all the rest back." (total paraphrasing on my part, sorry.) That is absolutely the truth. No fundamental right is (arguably) more important than free speech, as it is with free speech that we achieved all the rest. Now, there are obvious exceptions to this rule, such as the right to life, etc. Mind you, many have no problem taking that one away, either.
Without the right to a forum for discussion, there could be no discussion. Without the right to protest, there could be no political progression. These dummies complaining to the HRC have every right to complain (without free speech, they wouldn't), just as every defendent had every right to say--or publish--what they did. That's the beauty of the free West. Levant said "we love justice." But the HRC isn't a real court. There's no real evidence needed, no real trials, no real justice. And the truth is, if these wacko complainants win their cases, it may be a feather in their cap (as my Buby would say), but it isn't simply a loss for the defendent. It's a loss for Canada, and the freedom we have boasted so proudly about. It's a loss for you and your liberty. It's the first chip in the decay of your fundamental rights, your society, and your freedom.
One of my favourite parts was when Micheal pointed out that many leftists see this issue as a battle of the political sides of the spectrum. Both men asserted that this is not the case at all. Neither care whether you're wrong--er, left, or right. This isn't about that. This isn't a bunch of bible-thumping Republican types ranting on about the HRCs, dabbling in little lies along the way in an attempt to ice to their white and blue free speech plea cake. (See, Canadian Cynic? I can list off dumb stereotypes and pass it off as a blog, too!)
No, this is an issue that affects everyone. We just happened to catch on first. But most of you have an excuse, as your heads were buried somewhere far up your bottoms. Many people are choosing to be stubborn now, based undoutably on shabby pretend principles, if everyone doesn't recognize how important this issue is--and soon--we're all going to pay the price. Levant pointed out that it isn't even the Conservatives who thrive off the freedom to speech as much as the Liberals do. Womens' rights, Black rights, Gay rights... They were all achieved by means of free speech!
Quoting an unknown both yesterday and today, Ezra asserted, "Take away all of my rights except for free speech, because it is with that one that I can win all the rest back." (total paraphrasing on my part, sorry.) That is absolutely the truth. No fundamental right is (arguably) more important than free speech, as it is with free speech that we achieved all the rest. Now, there are obvious exceptions to this rule, such as the right to life, etc. Mind you, many have no problem taking that one away, either.
Without the right to a forum for discussion, there could be no discussion. Without the right to protest, there could be no political progression. These dummies complaining to the HRC have every right to complain (without free speech, they wouldn't), just as every defendent had every right to say--or publish--what they did. That's the beauty of the free West. Levant said "we love justice." But the HRC isn't a real court. There's no real evidence needed, no real trials, no real justice. And the truth is, if these wacko complainants win their cases, it may be a feather in their cap (as my Buby would say), but it isn't simply a loss for the defendent. It's a loss for Canada, and the freedom we have boasted so proudly about. It's a loss for you and your liberty. It's the first chip in the decay of your fundamental rights, your society, and your freedom.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
"I hope my boyfriend don't mind it..."
wtf is this??
This song came on when I was in the car with my friend. We felt so unbelievably uncomfortable that we literally had to turn off the radio (it's getting a lot of air play) and get out of the car. Not only is it normalizing (and even glamourizing) girls fooling around with girls while these girls are still dating boys, but it's kind of like she's sharing with us a moment that really shouldn't be shared. The worst part is, it's so damn catchy.
This song came on when I was in the car with my friend. We felt so unbelievably uncomfortable that we literally had to turn off the radio (it's getting a lot of air play) and get out of the car. Not only is it normalizing (and even glamourizing) girls fooling around with girls while these girls are still dating boys, but it's kind of like she's sharing with us a moment that really shouldn't be shared. The worst part is, it's so damn catchy.
Friday, June 13, 2008
"We" should acknowledge the native issues, but put an end to our unnecessary guilt
An NP article today, which dealt with the native residential schools in brief detail, and Harper's apology in even briefer, featured this excerpt in bold:
"We presumed that the savages had to be broken like wild horses and assimilated into the general population."
Now I'm not going to argue that the residential school situation wasn't a horrific thing that should never, ever be committed again, but I will say that I do think Harper's apology was more pointless than people seem to think. Yes, it served a symbolic purpose and was very important to the native community, which is good, and it is probably a positive thing that he did say sorry (for something he didn't have anything to do with). I don't, however, think that the miracles that the apology will seemingly bring will stretch beyond the symbolic. The native reserves will still have rampant alcoholism and appauling education statistics. The community will still be stuck in an unadvancing rut, plateuing nonstop in regards to any sort of educational or economical progression. It will still have chiefs who sit atop the hierarchy and collect all the government cheques, which they use to buy cadillacs while the rest of the community is dirt poor. And the government will still continue to dish out those cheques, straight from our pockets. More should be done in regards to giving Canada's native community a hand-up, instead of a hand-out. Because anyone will be lazy if you make it almost impossible for them not to be.
The main problem I had with the NP article, and the above excerpt in particular, is, who is "We"? Does every Canadian citizen absorb the faults of the past citizens? If a serial killer murders 10 people, does every other person in his community--including those who inhabit it many generations later--have to pay the price of those murders forever more? Even though we, as Canadian citizens today, had absolutely nothing to do with residential schools, and native Canadians today, for the most part, had absolutely nothing to do with them either, do we still have to pay the price (straight from our tax dollars)? According to Harper, and A LOT of the country, apparently that is the case.
So, okay, that's the case. Does the "We," then, include new Canadians? Immigrants who have lived in the country for under a month? Do they, in accepting their citizenship, automatically absorb the fault of a crime committed so long ago, when they hadn't a tie whatsoever to the country at all? Perhaps the government also believes that this is the case. Well, that is a very patriotic concept, I must say (in a very self-loathing, very Liberal Canadian sort of way). But I would hardly call the vast, vast majority of Canadian citizens patriotic. Hell, why should they be? There's no need to even get off your ass and stand for the national anthem in this country! So, if we needn't stand for the native anthem of our country, why, then, need we have the guilt of these events thrust upon us daily?
Again, I will maintain that I do look back on these events will great sadness, and that is not 'necessary,' persay, but it is, rather, simple human nature. Yes, we should undoubtedly feel sad when we recall the terrible things that happened to the natives way back when, but that does not mean we should feel guilty for them. Sadness is not equal to guilt. Guilt implies that there is a price to be paid, which is exactly what the government is forcing upon us. Personally--and I think many will agree with me here--I think that constantly dishing over our hard-earned cash to the native chiefs to splurge on goodies and leave the rest of their communities to suffer is not something that is conducive to repairing the collective lives of a people. Granted, that is not an every-case scenario, but even if the native community was getting an equal cut of the money, giving anyone a hand-out will not help them pull themselves out of a rut.
Of course the tragedy of the residential schools should be acknowledged and looked upon with sadness, just like every other great tragedy. But instead of beating ourselves up again and again, for something "We" didn't have anything to do with, we should encourage our government to come up with a more productive way of helping the natives out. Because clearly, this way isn't exactly working.
"We presumed that the savages had to be broken like wild horses and assimilated into the general population."
Now I'm not going to argue that the residential school situation wasn't a horrific thing that should never, ever be committed again, but I will say that I do think Harper's apology was more pointless than people seem to think. Yes, it served a symbolic purpose and was very important to the native community, which is good, and it is probably a positive thing that he did say sorry (for something he didn't have anything to do with). I don't, however, think that the miracles that the apology will seemingly bring will stretch beyond the symbolic. The native reserves will still have rampant alcoholism and appauling education statistics. The community will still be stuck in an unadvancing rut, plateuing nonstop in regards to any sort of educational or economical progression. It will still have chiefs who sit atop the hierarchy and collect all the government cheques, which they use to buy cadillacs while the rest of the community is dirt poor. And the government will still continue to dish out those cheques, straight from our pockets. More should be done in regards to giving Canada's native community a hand-up, instead of a hand-out. Because anyone will be lazy if you make it almost impossible for them not to be.
The main problem I had with the NP article, and the above excerpt in particular, is, who is "We"? Does every Canadian citizen absorb the faults of the past citizens? If a serial killer murders 10 people, does every other person in his community--including those who inhabit it many generations later--have to pay the price of those murders forever more? Even though we, as Canadian citizens today, had absolutely nothing to do with residential schools, and native Canadians today, for the most part, had absolutely nothing to do with them either, do we still have to pay the price (straight from our tax dollars)? According to Harper, and A LOT of the country, apparently that is the case.
So, okay, that's the case. Does the "We," then, include new Canadians? Immigrants who have lived in the country for under a month? Do they, in accepting their citizenship, automatically absorb the fault of a crime committed so long ago, when they hadn't a tie whatsoever to the country at all? Perhaps the government also believes that this is the case. Well, that is a very patriotic concept, I must say (in a very self-loathing, very Liberal Canadian sort of way). But I would hardly call the vast, vast majority of Canadian citizens patriotic. Hell, why should they be? There's no need to even get off your ass and stand for the national anthem in this country! So, if we needn't stand for the native anthem of our country, why, then, need we have the guilt of these events thrust upon us daily?
Again, I will maintain that I do look back on these events will great sadness, and that is not 'necessary,' persay, but it is, rather, simple human nature. Yes, we should undoubtedly feel sad when we recall the terrible things that happened to the natives way back when, but that does not mean we should feel guilty for them. Sadness is not equal to guilt. Guilt implies that there is a price to be paid, which is exactly what the government is forcing upon us. Personally--and I think many will agree with me here--I think that constantly dishing over our hard-earned cash to the native chiefs to splurge on goodies and leave the rest of their communities to suffer is not something that is conducive to repairing the collective lives of a people. Granted, that is not an every-case scenario, but even if the native community was getting an equal cut of the money, giving anyone a hand-out will not help them pull themselves out of a rut.
Of course the tragedy of the residential schools should be acknowledged and looked upon with sadness, just like every other great tragedy. But instead of beating ourselves up again and again, for something "We" didn't have anything to do with, we should encourage our government to come up with a more productive way of helping the natives out. Because clearly, this way isn't exactly working.
Oh my gosh, I can do that?!
According to the NP, Richard Warman finalized his CHRC kvetch against Ciaran Paul Donnelly, the BC dude who "hateful" things about Warman on the net. Donnelly, who posted his messaged of "hate" under a fake name, now has to close his Stormfront account, stop posting hate propaganda, or anything else about Warman, and pay $1000 for posting something that said "The Church of Dead Warman."
First of all, stupid. This country is getting crazier by the second. But at least it's only $1000. Boisson got a lot more than that for simply preaching his own faith.
Second of all, we can do that?! If someone is posting "hateful," suggestive-of-death things on the net, we can take them to court and sue them for all they're worth?! Man, omenofclarity, whoever he/she is (hah), should probably be worried!
First of all, stupid. This country is getting crazier by the second. But at least it's only $1000. Boisson got a lot more than that for simply preaching his own faith.
Second of all, we can do that?! If someone is posting "hateful," suggestive-of-death things on the net, we can take them to court and sue them for all they're worth?! Man, omenofclarity, whoever he/she is (hah), should probably be worried!
Friday the 13th just got scarier
Today I found out that on Monday in the legislature, the Lord's prayer will be accompanied by several other prayers from several other religions. The prayers--which includes a "moment of silence" for atheists--will be in a sort of rotation, so if you're ever at the legislature, you never know what you might get! It's kind of like a grab-bag of sacred prayers. This means that one day you might hear the loud booming of native drums resonating throughout the legislature walls, and the next you might hear the Islamic prayer echoing throughout the province, and the next, perhaps, nothing at all. SHH! Other religions that will have their prayers read include: Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, "Non-Denominational," Baha'i, and Sikhism (the ones who fought for the right to let their young sons bring daggers to school with them).
McGuinty was met with a lot of negative feedback when he decided to make this, um, edgy decision, particularly because no one formally requested such a thing be done. He just kind of brought it up out of nowhere. In fact, even the NDPs aren't on board. A lot of people feel that in losing the Lord's prayer, or in replacing it with other prayers, we are losing an essential part of the culture of our province. Well, yeah. We all knew this was coming.
Freedom of religion is one thing. Eliminating an age-old tradition in its name is quite another. Having the Lord's prayer in the legislature is something that has made Ontario, Ontario. And Canada, Canada, for that matter. Taking it away, is in a sense, taking away a big part of the culture. And replacing it with something new is, in every sense, replacing a big part of the culture, and providing a smooth segue into allowing more of the same to occur.
McGuinty was met with a lot of negative feedback when he decided to make this, um, edgy decision, particularly because no one formally requested such a thing be done. He just kind of brought it up out of nowhere. In fact, even the NDPs aren't on board. A lot of people feel that in losing the Lord's prayer, or in replacing it with other prayers, we are losing an essential part of the culture of our province. Well, yeah. We all knew this was coming.
Freedom of religion is one thing. Eliminating an age-old tradition in its name is quite another. Having the Lord's prayer in the legislature is something that has made Ontario, Ontario. And Canada, Canada, for that matter. Taking it away, is in a sense, taking away a big part of the culture. And replacing it with something new is, in every sense, replacing a big part of the culture, and providing a smooth segue into allowing more of the same to occur.
Something kind of interesting...
The stats are in, and it seems that, in short, there aren't enough highschool kids passing the grade ten literacy test. In my opinion, if you're in grade ten, you should probably be literate. But hey.
To be more specific, here are some numbers:
84% of Serbian (home language) students passed the Ontario Literacy Test
79% of French (home language) students passed the Ontario Literacy Test
75% of English (home language) students passed the Ontario Literacy Test
36% of Dari - Afghanistan (home language) students passed the Ontario Literacy Test
Those are just so you get a feel for which cultural group scored the highest, which cultural group scored the lowest, and where Canada's two home language-speaking students fit in between. At first I thought this was a little sketchy, because it was probably just coincidental. But I found it in the Star, and I don't think the folks behind the Star are looking to offend any cultural groups. Looks like these are the facts. All I can say is that English and French speaking students (especially English, as that is the language that is tested) should probably be brushing up on their skills. Because if only 3/4 of the English-native-language population of students are completely literate, well, Toronto schools are lacking in more ways than we thought.
NOTE: Don't be too shocked. I'm hardly a regular Star reader--and I must say, it really is not a great paper--but in waiting for the bus at York U it was all they had to offer! Well, that, "Pride Week Magazine," and something written in Mandarin. Yeah.
To be more specific, here are some numbers:
84% of Serbian (home language) students passed the Ontario Literacy Test
79% of French (home language) students passed the Ontario Literacy Test
75% of English (home language) students passed the Ontario Literacy Test
36% of Dari - Afghanistan (home language) students passed the Ontario Literacy Test
Those are just so you get a feel for which cultural group scored the highest, which cultural group scored the lowest, and where Canada's two home language-speaking students fit in between. At first I thought this was a little sketchy, because it was probably just coincidental. But I found it in the Star, and I don't think the folks behind the Star are looking to offend any cultural groups. Looks like these are the facts. All I can say is that English and French speaking students (especially English, as that is the language that is tested) should probably be brushing up on their skills. Because if only 3/4 of the English-native-language population of students are completely literate, well, Toronto schools are lacking in more ways than we thought.
NOTE: Don't be too shocked. I'm hardly a regular Star reader--and I must say, it really is not a great paper--but in waiting for the bus at York U it was all they had to offer! Well, that, "Pride Week Magazine," and something written in Mandarin. Yeah.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Rectify your karma by helping a sister out
Because "most cardboard boxes don't have highspeed."
......
For all of my Conservative readers who want to keep the (very essential) online Conservative voice alive in Canada:
CLICK HERE
......
For all of my Liberal/NDP/commie readers who love to give their money away to charitable causes:
CLICK HERE
......
Pushy Muslim extremists get their way
Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has placed several restrictions on Ahmadiyah, a moderate Islamic sect, after much protesting by more extreme Muslims. Ahmadiyah is considered to be, by most other forms of Islam, a heretic offshoot, because they do not believe that Mohammed is the final prophet (although they recognize him as the most important and 'perfect'). So yes, they're infidels too. The main difference that I realized between Ahmadiyah and the Islam that we have all come to know, is their rejection of "the notion of jihad as a war on non-Muslims, believing hate should be answered by love."
The small sect (200, 000 - 2 million followers in Indonesia) has now been limited to practicing their religion at home, mostly, or in their mosques, but are absolutely forbidden to promote Ahmadiyah in any way, and "must not preach or try to convert others." With their mosques being burned down by extremists on a regular basis, practicing outside of their homes may be a little tricky for these people.
Secular Indonesians are dissapointed and frightened by President Yudhoyono's decision, calling it "cowardly," and worrying that it will put Indonesia's more liberal ways of life into question. They were met by radical Muslims with sticks at a recent protest for maintaining the country's right to freedom of religion.
The more extreme Muslims were delighted by this movement, as it signifies that they got their way by forcing a government official into submission. However, they're still pretty cranky about the fact that the Prez didn't put a complete and total ban on Ahmadiyah. But hey, they can pick their battles. "In good time, son, in good time." (By "good" I mean "a short amount of").
The penalty that an Ahmadiyah(an?) faces if he/she "spreads interpretations and activities which deviate from the principal teachings of Islam" is five years in jail.
Now, in case you didn't know, Indonesia has a constitution like ours that promises its citizens the freedom of religion. Yes, the almost-ban on the Ahmadiyah sect goes against this essential right, but yes, President Yudhoyono still put it into action. And--just to clear one final thing up--yes, it was because of much urging from ultra-religious, ultra-extreme Muslims.
The NP article quotes Muslim extremist preacher Rizieq Shihab,
"Ahmadiyah has corrupted Islam. They cannot be contained or protected. They have to be disbanded."
Now here's the thing. What good ol' Riz, and other Muslims who hold more "traditional" views (Elmasry, Awan, etc.), keep saying is that movements and beliefs counter to theirs somehow "corrupt" Islam, or give it a bad name. Remember that Ahmadiyah is not a far-cry from Islam. It, in fact, IS Islam, just in a different, more peaceloving form. Kind of like "Islam Lite." It's simply a different point of view--which isn't even that different. In no way does Ahmadiyah "corrupt" Islam. If that were the case, then surely everything else that is different from extremist Qu'ran interpretations would also be a corruption of Islam. If radicals want to destroy a moderate sect of their own faith, then God help any other faith. Or any other way of life, for that matter. But that's exactly how these people think: down with everything but them. And this is what has to be realized, and not caved under, as has happened with President Yudhoyono.
Catholicism has always had a little heat with Protestantism, because they are two different interpretations of the same basic point of view, but each one thinks the other is completely off base. And yes, there have been battles. But not today. Not in this more civilized day and age. Catholics aren't out whacking WASPs with sticks and burning down their churches because they feel that they're somehow "corrupting" Christianity. No, they live in countries where freedom of religion means that people actually have the freedom to practice their religion (kind of like Indonesia used to be), and so they tolerate other points of view. I'm aware that a lot of you reading this may be absolutely brimming with rebuttle points to what I'm saying right now, but come on. That's just the way it is. This is not a "difference in culture." This is tolerance. And governments should be promoting tolerance, not cutting it completely because of pressure from extremist wackos.
Tolerance is a tricky term, meaning most basically that all points of view should be tolerated. Perhaps the word in its most literal form should not be the case (we don't want to tolerate murderers), but tolerating all forms of thinking is a positive thing. So when Muslim extremists pressure the government to ban a sect from (basically) surviving, it's a dangerous thing. And when pushy Muslim whiners kvetch to the CHRC about some guy's opinion having a "negative effect" on their reputations and pressure the government (soon enough) to ban some guy's opinion from being expressed, it's equally as dangerous.
The small sect (200, 000 - 2 million followers in Indonesia) has now been limited to practicing their religion at home, mostly, or in their mosques, but are absolutely forbidden to promote Ahmadiyah in any way, and "must not preach or try to convert others." With their mosques being burned down by extremists on a regular basis, practicing outside of their homes may be a little tricky for these people.
Secular Indonesians are dissapointed and frightened by President Yudhoyono's decision, calling it "cowardly," and worrying that it will put Indonesia's more liberal ways of life into question. They were met by radical Muslims with sticks at a recent protest for maintaining the country's right to freedom of religion.
The more extreme Muslims were delighted by this movement, as it signifies that they got their way by forcing a government official into submission. However, they're still pretty cranky about the fact that the Prez didn't put a complete and total ban on Ahmadiyah. But hey, they can pick their battles. "In good time, son, in good time." (By "good" I mean "a short amount of").
The penalty that an Ahmadiyah(an?) faces if he/she "spreads interpretations and activities which deviate from the principal teachings of Islam" is five years in jail.
Now, in case you didn't know, Indonesia has a constitution like ours that promises its citizens the freedom of religion. Yes, the almost-ban on the Ahmadiyah sect goes against this essential right, but yes, President Yudhoyono still put it into action. And--just to clear one final thing up--yes, it was because of much urging from ultra-religious, ultra-extreme Muslims.
The NP article quotes Muslim extremist preacher Rizieq Shihab,
"Ahmadiyah has corrupted Islam. They cannot be contained or protected. They have to be disbanded."
Now here's the thing. What good ol' Riz, and other Muslims who hold more "traditional" views (Elmasry, Awan, etc.), keep saying is that movements and beliefs counter to theirs somehow "corrupt" Islam, or give it a bad name. Remember that Ahmadiyah is not a far-cry from Islam. It, in fact, IS Islam, just in a different, more peaceloving form. Kind of like "Islam Lite." It's simply a different point of view--which isn't even that different. In no way does Ahmadiyah "corrupt" Islam. If that were the case, then surely everything else that is different from extremist Qu'ran interpretations would also be a corruption of Islam. If radicals want to destroy a moderate sect of their own faith, then God help any other faith. Or any other way of life, for that matter. But that's exactly how these people think: down with everything but them. And this is what has to be realized, and not caved under, as has happened with President Yudhoyono.
Catholicism has always had a little heat with Protestantism, because they are two different interpretations of the same basic point of view, but each one thinks the other is completely off base. And yes, there have been battles. But not today. Not in this more civilized day and age. Catholics aren't out whacking WASPs with sticks and burning down their churches because they feel that they're somehow "corrupting" Christianity. No, they live in countries where freedom of religion means that people actually have the freedom to practice their religion (kind of like Indonesia used to be), and so they tolerate other points of view. I'm aware that a lot of you reading this may be absolutely brimming with rebuttle points to what I'm saying right now, but come on. That's just the way it is. This is not a "difference in culture." This is tolerance. And governments should be promoting tolerance, not cutting it completely because of pressure from extremist wackos.
Tolerance is a tricky term, meaning most basically that all points of view should be tolerated. Perhaps the word in its most literal form should not be the case (we don't want to tolerate murderers), but tolerating all forms of thinking is a positive thing. So when Muslim extremists pressure the government to ban a sect from (basically) surviving, it's a dangerous thing. And when pushy Muslim whiners kvetch to the CHRC about some guy's opinion having a "negative effect" on their reputations and pressure the government (soon enough) to ban some guy's opinion from being expressed, it's equally as dangerous.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
The fightin' side of you?
Kind of a classic American Merle Haggard country song.
But it should still ring true...and if not, it will at least make you jealous, due to our complete lack of patriotism.
.....
I hear people talking bad,
About the way we have to live here in this country,
Harping on the wars we fight,
And gripin' 'bout the way things oughta be.
And I don't mind 'em switching sides,
And standing up for things they believe in.
When they're running down my country, man,
They're walking on the fightin' side of me.
Running down the way of life,
Our fightin' men have fought and died to keep.
If you don't love it, leave it.
I read about some squirrely guy,
Who claims, he just don't believe in fightin'.
And I wonder just how long,
The rest of us can count on being free.
They love our milk and honey,
But they preach about some other way of living.
When they're running down my country, hoss,
They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
.....
The "squirrely guy" can be whoever you dislike most in this case. Jack Layton, Obama, anyone at the CHRC... Take your pic, and feel free to spend a little time relishing in the lyrics, now that they've been infused with a frustrating new meaning.
But it should still ring true...and if not, it will at least make you jealous, due to our complete lack of patriotism.
.....
I hear people talking bad,
About the way we have to live here in this country,
Harping on the wars we fight,
And gripin' 'bout the way things oughta be.
And I don't mind 'em switching sides,
And standing up for things they believe in.
When they're running down my country, man,
They're walking on the fightin' side of me.
Running down the way of life,
Our fightin' men have fought and died to keep.
If you don't love it, leave it.
I read about some squirrely guy,
Who claims, he just don't believe in fightin'.
And I wonder just how long,
The rest of us can count on being free.
They love our milk and honey,
But they preach about some other way of living.
When they're running down my country, hoss,
They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
.....
The "squirrely guy" can be whoever you dislike most in this case. Jack Layton, Obama, anyone at the CHRC... Take your pic, and feel free to spend a little time relishing in the lyrics, now that they've been infused with a frustrating new meaning.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Maclean's and the ferocious Steyn vs. A few offended muslims
So I guess we'll be seeing the verdict on the 'Maclean's vs. The muslims whose feelings were hurt' case soon. I'm really curious as to see just how far the pretend court will go in regard to its decision. Will the sockies get an article of equal length published? Something tells me that even the BCHRC won't be able to pull that one off. Maclean's IS a private magazine. Will Steyn have to pay up some "I'm sorry" cash? Will he have to make a forced, laughable (pointless) apology? Will America Alone be banned in Canada? WILL STEYN BE BANNED IN CANADA?! Well, I mean, come on guys. It's not THAT crazy. He is a threat to society as we know it. Oh wait...
Now let's see how many times I can say "British Columbia" in one paragraph...
Why this case is being taken to "court" in British Columbia is starting to puzzle a lot of Canadians. Neither the defendents or the plaintiffs are from British Columbia. The events in question did not occur in British Columbia. Nothing the plaintiffs have brought up has occurred in, or had anything to do with, British Columbia. But still, the three Ontarian law students are the rightful representatives of the muslim population in British Columbia, and therefore got to take (what was very likely their first) trip to British Columbia, to relentlessly fight Big Bad Steyn.
Their ultimate goal is to silence him. Or um, kind of cancel out what he's saying by saying whatever they want in the same magazine. Arguably Canada's best political magazine. The magazine that he presumably had to work hard to write for. A job which he earned based on his excellent journalism skills (he was just nominated for a National Magazine Award). Essentially, the three law students and the CIC are demanding to strip Steyn, and the rest of the acclaimed writers at Maclean's, of a cover story and lengthy article spot; not based on the fact that their journalism skills (or the skills of whomever they choose to write this garbage) are superior to, or even as good as, any of the writers at Maclean's. No, this is based on the fact that they didn't like Steyn's article. It hurt their feelings. ...So don't buy the damn magazine!
Still, they are fighting. This isn't a tough fight, mind you. It doesn't take cunning intellect or strength or even evidence. Just the fact that your community got a collective boo-boo on their feelings (again, a community which none of these people even barely represent in the first place). We get it; you're muslim and they are too. But quite frankly, I'd be a little offended if I were a muslim from BC. There are plenty of Jews that I wouldn't want representing me, just because they're Jewish...that's for sure. Plus these people are idiots!
But let's see...do these nuts even know what they're fighting anymore? An Osgoode Hall law degree should mean that one is pretty well equipped to win a case, or at least take the proper steps in order to actually be involved in a case. Well, we all saw on TVO that not one of the three--not the big dumb male or either of the submissive female--law students really knew what they were talking about. And if they did, then what they're saying really isn't worth discussing at all. They challenged Steyn to a debate, and then, after much hesitation, argued with him on TVO. Then they used that very argument (the one they requested publicly) against him in "court"! Apparently, he was rude to them off-camera. What a crime!!!
An excerpt from Steyn's article on the case:
.....
"At the opening of Tuesday's proceedings, Faisal Joseph announced that he wanted to devote that day not to me or Maclean's or the substance of my article but to the media and blogospheric reaction to the complaints. In other words, he was explicitly confirming Porter's point — insofar as anything has exposed Khurrum Awan to "hatred and contempt," it's not the Maclean's cover story but his own lawsuit."
.....
According to the Post, Steyn's article wasn't even presented in the "court" until the third day of the unecessarily long (five-day) trial. Yes, that's the article that the case is supposed to be about. Which means that the plaintiffs have effectively blabbered on, for two days of many peoples' time, about the ridiculous number of times they have been "offended" by a ridiculous number of things that have absolutely nothing to do with the case. Is this a real court? Nope. Do these plaintiffs know what they're doing? Yes, I believe they do. Is it what you're supposed to do in a courtroom? Nope. Ah, but let's remember: this isn't a real court. This is a court of feelings and chit-chatting and unicorns and marshmallow pie.
Only in Canada would this absolutely bogus, absolutely waste-of-time case be permitted to take place, take innocent peoples' money, and take up the time of a nation. What should be on trial here is the steady creeping of soft-totalitarian practices into our society. How embarrassing (not to mention extremely disconcerting).
.....
"It just goes to show, even when you have no idea you're committing a hate crime, chances are you still are."
.....
Now let's see how many times I can say "British Columbia" in one paragraph...
Why this case is being taken to "court" in British Columbia is starting to puzzle a lot of Canadians. Neither the defendents or the plaintiffs are from British Columbia. The events in question did not occur in British Columbia. Nothing the plaintiffs have brought up has occurred in, or had anything to do with, British Columbia. But still, the three Ontarian law students are the rightful representatives of the muslim population in British Columbia, and therefore got to take (what was very likely their first) trip to British Columbia, to relentlessly fight Big Bad Steyn.
Their ultimate goal is to silence him. Or um, kind of cancel out what he's saying by saying whatever they want in the same magazine. Arguably Canada's best political magazine. The magazine that he presumably had to work hard to write for. A job which he earned based on his excellent journalism skills (he was just nominated for a National Magazine Award). Essentially, the three law students and the CIC are demanding to strip Steyn, and the rest of the acclaimed writers at Maclean's, of a cover story and lengthy article spot; not based on the fact that their journalism skills (or the skills of whomever they choose to write this garbage) are superior to, or even as good as, any of the writers at Maclean's. No, this is based on the fact that they didn't like Steyn's article. It hurt their feelings. ...So don't buy the damn magazine!
Still, they are fighting. This isn't a tough fight, mind you. It doesn't take cunning intellect or strength or even evidence. Just the fact that your community got a collective boo-boo on their feelings (again, a community which none of these people even barely represent in the first place). We get it; you're muslim and they are too. But quite frankly, I'd be a little offended if I were a muslim from BC. There are plenty of Jews that I wouldn't want representing me, just because they're Jewish...that's for sure. Plus these people are idiots!
But let's see...do these nuts even know what they're fighting anymore? An Osgoode Hall law degree should mean that one is pretty well equipped to win a case, or at least take the proper steps in order to actually be involved in a case. Well, we all saw on TVO that not one of the three--not the big dumb male or either of the submissive female--law students really knew what they were talking about. And if they did, then what they're saying really isn't worth discussing at all. They challenged Steyn to a debate, and then, after much hesitation, argued with him on TVO. Then they used that very argument (the one they requested publicly) against him in "court"! Apparently, he was rude to them off-camera. What a crime!!!
An excerpt from Steyn's article on the case:
.....
"At the opening of Tuesday's proceedings, Faisal Joseph announced that he wanted to devote that day not to me or Maclean's or the substance of my article but to the media and blogospheric reaction to the complaints. In other words, he was explicitly confirming Porter's point — insofar as anything has exposed Khurrum Awan to "hatred and contempt," it's not the Maclean's cover story but his own lawsuit."
.....
According to the Post, Steyn's article wasn't even presented in the "court" until the third day of the unecessarily long (five-day) trial. Yes, that's the article that the case is supposed to be about. Which means that the plaintiffs have effectively blabbered on, for two days of many peoples' time, about the ridiculous number of times they have been "offended" by a ridiculous number of things that have absolutely nothing to do with the case. Is this a real court? Nope. Do these plaintiffs know what they're doing? Yes, I believe they do. Is it what you're supposed to do in a courtroom? Nope. Ah, but let's remember: this isn't a real court. This is a court of feelings and chit-chatting and unicorns and marshmallow pie.
Only in Canada would this absolutely bogus, absolutely waste-of-time case be permitted to take place, take innocent peoples' money, and take up the time of a nation. What should be on trial here is the steady creeping of soft-totalitarian practices into our society. How embarrassing (not to mention extremely disconcerting).
.....
"It just goes to show, even when you have no idea you're committing a hate crime, chances are you still are."
.....
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
So it's Obama.. (aka: we're screwed)
Funny pic. I got it from Brass Balls Radio, where there is also a pretty interesting prediction about the upcoming presidentials.
I wasn't a huge fan of Obama, Clinton or McCain to begin with. I'm still not. I prefer McCain out of all of them, though. He has the drive and patriotism to really fight for his country (which is essential for America right now), and he's pro-Israel. Mind you, his amnesty policies are absolutely ridiculous: "If you've cheated the system successfully, we'll reward you with citizenship!" And he' all-round a little too left for me. Right now I think the States needs someone to REPAIR, not to CHANGE. So when Obama said that McCain was sort of a carbon copy of Bush, and therefore he would not be conducive to change in the country, not only was he wrong about McCain, but he was wrong about what the country needs.
McCain is hardly as neo-con as Bush. I would argue that many of his policies barely pass as Republican at all. But he may be the man to repair. Help fix the debt a little, and restore the patriotism that many Americans have seemingly lost. Bush made a speech a few months back about how crucial it is for Americans (and the presidential candidates) to realize that the country can't just pull out of the war. They can't just eject themselves from a situation and expect there not to be serious repercussions. The speech was delivered very off-handedly, and Bush was joking around a lot. This was probably because he realizes that a lot of the country has kind of stopped liking him a teeny little bit... And also, he has no upcoming election to worry about. But his main points ring true.
Barack Hussein may be offering America change...but is it really the change they need? Affiliated with a wacko church for twenty-some years, he later renounced his connection with it, and the rev, because it was beginning to hurt his campaign. Well, duh. Of course he's going to cut off those ties (publicly)! This doesn't mean he still doesn't hold the anti-white, anti-Semitic, anti-American values that his church is founded on. And yes, his name does rhyme with "Iraq Hussein Osama." Not that that's the reason he shouldn't be president. No, more because he's kind of a liar, kind of a racist, and a smug little bastard to boot. Oh, but he's such a dreeeeaaamy public speaker......
Granted, he's got the charisma, according to his starstruck fans. But really, the democratic primaries this year were a joke.
"I'm black. That's a change. Vote for me!"
"I'm a woman. That's a change. Vote for me!"
".....Okay!"
While McCain makes strong, rational points about why Israel needs the support of America, Obama recalls times when he had a Jewish camp counsellor. He's got that "good enough because he uses pretty words" thing going for him. Many people say that he inspires them to vote again. He's a good politcian, that's for sure. All snide and distracting. But if you think America is in bad shape now, give him a few years in office. Whoooo boy.
I was really rooting for Hillary in this one, and only because I figured McCain could definitely beat her.
But now that Obama-mama has won the democratic vote...I think he's going to take the cake.
And that really, really is not a good thing.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Sneaking Shariah in
John Turley-Ewart makes it clear in an article in yesterday's National Post, entitled "Shariah by stealth," that the Liberal government in Ontario does not want to face the issue of polygamy in the Islamic community. The article stars Imam Aly Hindy, a Toronto-based leader in the Muslim community, who is a staunch supporter of polygamy at any cost, as well as anything else the Qu'ran says. His blatant disregard for the importance of women and Canadian culture/laws makes it shocking that the Liberals even feel comfortable not doing anything to address said issues. I mean, this is their country too.
.....
"Hindy's support for polygamy is but one aspect of his fundamentalist version of Islam, which he would like to spread and legitamize in Canadian society. He has admitted as much, challenging Ontario's government to stop him. "If the laws of the country conflict with Islamic law, if one goes against the other, then I am going to follow Islamic law, simple as that," he told the Star."
.....
Hindy maintains that religious freedom--as granted by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms--surpasses Canada's Criminal Code in regards to polygamy, and any other issue that might come up. Mind you, I'm sure he'd be all for slipping the Charter under the rug when it comes to freedom of speech or press. But then, I guess that's just racist, presumptuous speculation on my part, which is completely out of line and false beyond doubt. *cough*
It's awful for anyone to say that one of these kooks hasn't assimilated, but yet they can challenge the Ontario government, without a wince or any shame whatsoever, and swear to not follow the country's laws if it conflicts with those of their religion. Pretty sure not abiding by the laws is about the least assimilated one can get. Not to mention what a huge threat to society that is. Our country is so unbelievably messed up.
As Turley-Ewart states in the article, Muslim women are being victimized here, when Imams like Hindy are encouraging husbands to go off and find more wives behind their (first) wife's back. And allowing a few people to get away with practicing Shariah law--as opposed to Canadian laws--is the same thing as simply having Shariah law instead.
.....
"By turning a blind eye to polygamy, Premier McGuinty is giving license to Shariah by stealth."
.....
.....
"Hindy's support for polygamy is but one aspect of his fundamentalist version of Islam, which he would like to spread and legitamize in Canadian society. He has admitted as much, challenging Ontario's government to stop him. "If the laws of the country conflict with Islamic law, if one goes against the other, then I am going to follow Islamic law, simple as that," he told the Star."
.....
Hindy maintains that religious freedom--as granted by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms--surpasses Canada's Criminal Code in regards to polygamy, and any other issue that might come up. Mind you, I'm sure he'd be all for slipping the Charter under the rug when it comes to freedom of speech or press. But then, I guess that's just racist, presumptuous speculation on my part, which is completely out of line and false beyond doubt. *cough*
It's awful for anyone to say that one of these kooks hasn't assimilated, but yet they can challenge the Ontario government, without a wince or any shame whatsoever, and swear to not follow the country's laws if it conflicts with those of their religion. Pretty sure not abiding by the laws is about the least assimilated one can get. Not to mention what a huge threat to society that is. Our country is so unbelievably messed up.
As Turley-Ewart states in the article, Muslim women are being victimized here, when Imams like Hindy are encouraging husbands to go off and find more wives behind their (first) wife's back. And allowing a few people to get away with practicing Shariah law--as opposed to Canadian laws--is the same thing as simply having Shariah law instead.
.....
"By turning a blind eye to polygamy, Premier McGuinty is giving license to Shariah by stealth."
.....
"Strict rules of evidence do not apply" in cases before the Tribunal
You should probably read the National Post's article on the Maclean's trial in BC. It puts it in pretty clear perspective. Kind of a fluffy, pretend court that can have some terrifying outcomes that will negatively affect YOUR freedom.
.....
"He is not obliged to demonstrate what harm occurred to whom, or to what degree. Maclean's magazine and Mr. Steyn could still be found to have violated B. C.'s Human Rights Code. No proof of damage is required."
.....
As one reader, brian, points out:
"CAIR-CAN attempted to sue David Harris (ex-CSIS) for his comments about Islamists , in an attempted SLAPP lawsuit. In April 2006 the case was dismissed by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") is litigation intended to intimidate and silence critics or opponents by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense so that they abandon their criticism or opposition.
The CIC and Elmasry obviously took note of this failure and instead have used the HRC's as a method of silencing criticism.
Elmasry (CIC president)is not exactly a model of tolerance. He stated publicly that all Israeli citizens over the age of 18 are legitimate targets for suicide bombers and other attacks by the Palestinian "resistance"."
.....
"He is not obliged to demonstrate what harm occurred to whom, or to what degree. Maclean's magazine and Mr. Steyn could still be found to have violated B. C.'s Human Rights Code. No proof of damage is required."
.....
As one reader, brian, points out:
"CAIR-CAN attempted to sue David Harris (ex-CSIS) for his comments about Islamists , in an attempted SLAPP lawsuit. In April 2006 the case was dismissed by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") is litigation intended to intimidate and silence critics or opponents by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense so that they abandon their criticism or opposition.
The CIC and Elmasry obviously took note of this failure and instead have used the HRC's as a method of silencing criticism.
Elmasry (CIC president)is not exactly a model of tolerance. He stated publicly that all Israeli citizens over the age of 18 are legitimate targets for suicide bombers and other attacks by the Palestinian "resistance"."
Monday, June 2, 2008
Our "free" country: Steyn's first day in kangaroo court
Just because everyone should be kept posted on Mark Steyn's trial at the BC Human Rights Tribunal:
Andrew Coyne is live blogging it all.
This is all pretty exciting, if only for the sheer build-up that this trial (and more trials to come) have received. We all half-want Steyn to win, but half-don't, so his point can be proven further. I mean, I'm pretty sure he's going to lose--if the judge is as kooky as they say he is (come on, he is the judge for a BCHRC trial)--but I feel bad about the legal fees. If I weren't a near-starving student, I'd help out with everyones'. Never the less, the very fact that he is ON trial for what he did, in the first place, is absolutely ridiculous.
If you take a minute and set aside the commotion and preposterousness of the trial itself, and the fact that it's finally come, you can really ponder how absolutely disgusting it is that Steyn (and others) is being completely stripped of his rights and brought to court for one of the most bogus trials in history. Even if he wins, the legal fees will be unheard of. But aside from that; aside from fees and publicity and all that, think about it. A man is on trial right now for saying something. FOR SAYING SOMETHING. And it's not even an illegitimate thing to say. It is perfectly rational, and backed up with undeniable facts and statistics. Freedom of press? Freedom of speech?
Free country my ass.
Andrew Coyne is live blogging it all.
This is all pretty exciting, if only for the sheer build-up that this trial (and more trials to come) have received. We all half-want Steyn to win, but half-don't, so his point can be proven further. I mean, I'm pretty sure he's going to lose--if the judge is as kooky as they say he is (come on, he is the judge for a BCHRC trial)--but I feel bad about the legal fees. If I weren't a near-starving student, I'd help out with everyones'. Never the less, the very fact that he is ON trial for what he did, in the first place, is absolutely ridiculous.
If you take a minute and set aside the commotion and preposterousness of the trial itself, and the fact that it's finally come, you can really ponder how absolutely disgusting it is that Steyn (and others) is being completely stripped of his rights and brought to court for one of the most bogus trials in history. Even if he wins, the legal fees will be unheard of. But aside from that; aside from fees and publicity and all that, think about it. A man is on trial right now for saying something. FOR SAYING SOMETHING. And it's not even an illegitimate thing to say. It is perfectly rational, and backed up with undeniable facts and statistics. Freedom of press? Freedom of speech?
Free country my ass.
"It appears there's oppression afoot in the West... bad oppression."
Just saw this link on Ezra Levant's dot com..
.....
Man's Voice
Stupid foreigners!
Sound FX:
jail door slamming shut
Man's Voice
Hey! Grrrr!
Announcer
Thanks to stepped up enforcement and random internet checks, Canadian speech crimes have been cut nearly in half over the last three years. It's a record all Canadians can be proud of, but it's only a first step.
Man's Voice (echo-y reverb)
Stupid foreigners!
Announcer
Experts estimate that only 1/2 of 1% of all Canadian speech crimes are ever prosecuted, because most occur in the shadowy silence of private thought. It's time that all Canadians work together to recognize and report these non-verbal crimes before it's too late. If you know or suspect someone of harboring or contemplating offensive or otherwise un-Canadian ideas, please report to your Provincial Human Rights Office.
Man's Voice (echo-y reverb)
Stupid foreigners!
Sound FX:
jail door slamming shut
Announcer
This has been a public service announcement of the Royal Canadian Mounted Human Rights Police, reminding you to Think Before You Think
.....
Hilarious..! And it gets better. (That was just a 'commercial break'.)
Read more about WARMAN THE MOUNTED TAKING ON BLACQUE JACQUES LEVANT AND SNIDELY STEYN!
.....
Man's Voice
Stupid foreigners!
Sound FX:
jail door slamming shut
Man's Voice
Hey! Grrrr!
Announcer
Thanks to stepped up enforcement and random internet checks, Canadian speech crimes have been cut nearly in half over the last three years. It's a record all Canadians can be proud of, but it's only a first step.
Man's Voice (echo-y reverb)
Stupid foreigners!
Announcer
Experts estimate that only 1/2 of 1% of all Canadian speech crimes are ever prosecuted, because most occur in the shadowy silence of private thought. It's time that all Canadians work together to recognize and report these non-verbal crimes before it's too late. If you know or suspect someone of harboring or contemplating offensive or otherwise un-Canadian ideas, please report to your Provincial Human Rights Office.
Man's Voice (echo-y reverb)
Stupid foreigners!
Sound FX:
jail door slamming shut
Announcer
This has been a public service announcement of the Royal Canadian Mounted Human Rights Police, reminding you to Think Before You Think
.....
Hilarious..! And it gets better. (That was just a 'commercial break'.)
Read more about WARMAN THE MOUNTED TAKING ON BLACQUE JACQUES LEVANT AND SNIDELY STEYN!
Student leaders at York U laugh the issue off
Because we're the ones being silly, demanding free speech and open discussion on a popular societal debate. Obviously.
Check out this video link--an interview with two "student leaders" involved with York U--that a reader sent me:
Free Speech Stifled?
According to Duff, "The funding of the student union is discretionary. It's not an entitlement."
Then why the hell is EVERY student paying for it?! The function of a student union is to represent all students, which is clearly not that case here. The student union fee is included in tuition so that all students have the opportunity to get their voices heard, through the use of clubs, etc. I guess the York Student exec. feels differently because they're "elected democratically." Hmm.. sounds like someone should really get off their high horse and realize that they aren't politicians, they're leaders of a union which already has predisposed guidelines for their job description, entitlements, and responsibilities. Two very different positions.
Holloway and Duff present the typical left-wing defense perfectly with the typical smug laugh...mucho annoying. They coveniently slide over the real issue by saying that "most Canadians" (no poll taken) feel a certain way, and therefore no other viewpoint should be presented. Period. But we're the facists. Besides, it shouldn't matter if only ONE York student was pro-life. That student should still have equal opportunity as anyone else to express his opinion with all the advantages that every other student gets to express theirs. Especially if he's footing the bill. Conveniently, the YFS tried to slip this one by in the summer months, while most students weren't on campus to notice (or to give their opinion, or oppose anyone elses').
I'm really rather torn on the abortion issue, or at least how the process should be regulated publicly. I can kind of see both sides. But regardless of how I, or anyone, feels about abortion, this is an issue of free speech. I think it's terribly harsh when pro-lifers stand outside of abortion clinics throwing eggs and calling the young women murderers (stressful enough already, no?), but you know what? It is their Charter-given right to do so, and so it should be allowed. This is not an issue of womens' rights. Why on earth would so many women be pro-life, if success of the movement would result in the denying of their rights that they've worked so hard to gain? When these student "activist" leaders equate allowing the abortion debate on campus with stripping a woman of her right to vote, THEY are the ones who are being absurd.
There are so many things that make me angry about this issue, and about how Canadian universities are run, in general. I guess all one can do at this point is expose the hypocrisy behind some of these student leaders and organizations, and hope that people start to wake up and smell the the corrupt silencing agendas that are at work behind the scenes.
Check out this video link--an interview with two "student leaders" involved with York U--that a reader sent me:
Free Speech Stifled?
According to Duff, "The funding of the student union is discretionary. It's not an entitlement."
Then why the hell is EVERY student paying for it?! The function of a student union is to represent all students, which is clearly not that case here. The student union fee is included in tuition so that all students have the opportunity to get their voices heard, through the use of clubs, etc. I guess the York Student exec. feels differently because they're "elected democratically." Hmm.. sounds like someone should really get off their high horse and realize that they aren't politicians, they're leaders of a union which already has predisposed guidelines for their job description, entitlements, and responsibilities. Two very different positions.
Holloway and Duff present the typical left-wing defense perfectly with the typical smug laugh...mucho annoying. They coveniently slide over the real issue by saying that "most Canadians" (no poll taken) feel a certain way, and therefore no other viewpoint should be presented. Period. But we're the facists. Besides, it shouldn't matter if only ONE York student was pro-life. That student should still have equal opportunity as anyone else to express his opinion with all the advantages that every other student gets to express theirs. Especially if he's footing the bill. Conveniently, the YFS tried to slip this one by in the summer months, while most students weren't on campus to notice (or to give their opinion, or oppose anyone elses').
I'm really rather torn on the abortion issue, or at least how the process should be regulated publicly. I can kind of see both sides. But regardless of how I, or anyone, feels about abortion, this is an issue of free speech. I think it's terribly harsh when pro-lifers stand outside of abortion clinics throwing eggs and calling the young women murderers (stressful enough already, no?), but you know what? It is their Charter-given right to do so, and so it should be allowed. This is not an issue of womens' rights. Why on earth would so many women be pro-life, if success of the movement would result in the denying of their rights that they've worked so hard to gain? When these student "activist" leaders equate allowing the abortion debate on campus with stripping a woman of her right to vote, THEY are the ones who are being absurd.
There are so many things that make me angry about this issue, and about how Canadian universities are run, in general. I guess all one can do at this point is expose the hypocrisy behind some of these student leaders and organizations, and hope that people start to wake up and smell the the corrupt silencing agendas that are at work behind the scenes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
