shelshock Canada~

~back in a while~

2008-05-04T16:27:00.007-06:00

it's been a long time since i've blogged. the last year has been a rollercoaster, and the ride isn't slowing down yet.

for both of my readers: lots of stuff going on, but i'm gonna slow down in a while. when i pick this blog up again, the format is going to be a bit different, with a bit of a twist on the usual theme. but the fundamentals will be the same.

the date says 2008, but i edited the post June 14, '09.
yeah, i know that's a long time, but i'm in the Alberta oilfield and things are distracting these days.

ciao for now.......................................

The MoxArgon Group: XRAN XPLAINS: The Maclean's/Mark Steyn Controversy

2008-04-24T18:52:00.003-06:00

check this out. these guys kicked the crap out of my minutiae:

The MoxArgon Group: XRAN XPLAINS: The Maclean's/Mark Steyn Controversy

maybe i'll simplify... :)

~progressives~

2008-04-24T14:07:00.030-06:00

is it me, or is the term "progressive" making the political philosophical rounds again? maybe i've been noticing it more in the blogzoo these days because it's been on my mind lately.

check out American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/free_speech_in_canada.html

the author's premise is about social liberal contradiction.

on one hand, HRC supporters have no ethical problem using "the power of the state to repress speech deemed to be racist or sexist. Patrolling speech is something a civilized, modern, multi-cultural and tolerant nation should do".

on the other hand, HRC supporters have a big problem "patrolling speech" when it comes to the Tories' new Bill c-10. apparently, if a filmmaker produces a work which has been deigned "acceptable" by the social liberal zeitgeist, promoting murderous, racist communism (never murderous, racist fascism), or sexist Islam (never sexist Christianity), and the State declines to favour it with tax credits, this has in it "a whiff of censorship", to quote Canadian (actress or something) Sarah Polley.

the author writes:

"Okay. So apparently we are right to use the power of the state to repress speech deemed to be racist or sexist. Patrolling speech is something a civilized, modern, multi-cultural and tolerant nation should do.
Unless you happen to be a filmmaker facing the loss of federal tax credits which subsidize the film industry in Canada. The federal government is contemplating a new bill which will deny tax credits to a film "deemed offensive." The examples used are films that are pornographic or extremely violent. Please note: the government is not saying the film can't be made. They are saying the taxpayers won't have to subsidize it".

...which is my point. just because the State doesn't choose to subsidise art, this doesn't mean that the State is suppressing, by law, said art. this is not censorship.

...but as usual, most miss the point: the State shouldn't fund art of any kind, period! let's stop giving these flakes ammo with this stupid Bill c10. kill it, and kill all art welfare.

when our artists' firmly clenched teeth are pried off Mommystate's teat, and they, over time, think of themselves as less than precious and indispensable to the cultural integrity and intellectual stimulation of the nation, and lose their socialist sense of entitlement to money that doesn't belong to them, this ridiculous "censorship" issue will melt away, and artists will continue to create whatever the hell they want, on their own dime or sponsorship, without help nor hindrance from the State.

...as it should be.

~but, to get back to my thought, the "progressive" political philosophy is actually a self defeating one.

a Progressive needs two things. he needs an antagonist away from which to progress, and a system of support to implement his ideals.

at the heart of his problem are three liberties, which are the collective antagonist and the source of the Progressive's scorn.

Private Property Rights are the main target: if the Progressive can stifle property rights, the other two liberties are in the bag. a private property owner -private or business- must have freedom from intrusion and coercion by the State. a private residence, or a privately owned business or institution (restaurant, newspaper, lumber mill, church, school) must have the freedom to be as fair or unfair in it's hiring or public practices as it wishes. the markets may or may not economically punish it through ostracism or boycott if it decides to be a bad neighbor and ban a certain group or class. the markets can accommodate the group or class in question. money talks. no one need feel entitled to enter another's private home, business or institution...... the Progressive would control the owner's property, in the name of "human rights", eventually creating such a statist inertia (HRCs for example), that controlling escalating intrusion by the State would be nearly impossible.
Freedom of Speech is a target: the only speech which can fairly be punished, without corroding the ideal is slander/libel of an individual (not a group. we're all big kids. suck it up and use your freedom to rebuke) and fraud. speech deemed "offensive to", "hateful to" or "to create contempt for" a group (any group) is still free speech. these terms are subjective with varying degrees of meaning from one context to the next. don't believe me? why are inflammatory imams not sitting in the defendant's chairs at HRC interrogations?...... want to see fomented hate and violence? take away peoples' freedom of speech (or worse, some peoples' freedom of speech), watch the outrage build, look for the scapegoat, and wait for the explosion.
weapons ownership is a target (no pun): Progressives believe that if a nation can ban the guns, we will all be much safer. Progressives are naive and don't understand human nature. never mind an individual's natural right to procure food as part of his living or in an emergency (or even as a hobby), or his right to protect his person, property and family; if a gun ban was implemented, the only people with guns would be the State (police, bureaucrats and army) and the Criminal. the law abiding citizen would be left as an impotent sitting duck (so to speak), waiting to be harassed either by the Criminal, or by young cops and soldiers on a long leash. the evil side of human nature abhors a vacuum.

obviously, the well-meaning Progressive's system of support is the State. but, because of his agenda, the State grows and yearns to dominate, so is a naturally evil beast; necessary, but evil. the more thoughtful among us understand this. one way to ensure a small, efficient government is to protect the three liberties from it as much as possible.

...but why does the Progressive feel uncomfortable with these liberties? psychology aside (that's a another post), the Progressive looks to the State for security in jobs, housing, medical care and money if he finds himself short, and wants to control the State to further his security. the three liberties, by contrast and nature, demand to be left alone by government, and threaten his sense of security.

these liberties protect Individual Liberty. individual liberty is an ideal that wants to be protected from the State. this is the last bastion against totalitarianism. when it's crushed, the Progressive will wonder what went wrong when he finds himself pondering his poverty and oppression. he might then become objective, turn, and start to fight for property rights, free speech, and the right to bear arms.

every right given to someone by the State ensures a liberty is taken away from someone else.

:) :) Happy Earth Day (: (:

2008-04-22T09:46:00.027-06:00

...didn't know till this morning. just getting over a flu or something, so i'll probably treat myself to a nice drive into Edmonton with my jeep, and despite what adorable 14 year old "environmentally aware" protohippygirls earnestly sermonise, i'll probably leave it running in the MEC parking lot longer than 2 minutes.

maybe i'll get into it with some pierced, cornbraided Third World romantics about the the wide-eyed starving children, and the fact that we're turning our food crops into fuel -with the blessings of anti-capitalist agenda-drugged international bureaucrats- though we have perfectly good, ready made sources all over the place; oil and coal technology is getting cleaner; car engines are more and more fuel efficient, nuclear tech is growing exponentially (and is clean); biofuel is insanely green, and as it's developed, will be able to viably produce hydrogen power cells.

...i love the love for humanity the lovely loving Left lovingly, and with love, loves the lovers of humanity...

...but, y'knowww... suuumtimes, despite a profound, seriously deep loving love for the greater good of the proles we love and cherish, -you know, the ones "over there"-, "We have to break a few eggs to make an omelet" (Trotsky).

i've always hated omelets. they taste like shit. and they're gonna taste shittier when folks in other parts of the world have to fry 'em with canola biodeisel because our hippies and statists think it will be better for everyone in the longrun.

know what? the "longrun" never comes, and when idealistic socialists, who insist on a bratty equality of outcome rather than of opportunity fail, along with their perfect State, capitalism always comes to save the day and keeps these dreamers and subjective children from starving to death. life is never easy. but it's easier without a pernicious do-gooder State arbitrarily sticking it's nose in the economic and social realms and trying to "fix" everything.

ah, yes. left alone, the markets would fill the demand for products we need, if it were not for foolish children of all ages who, because of personal perceptions of inadequacy and jealousy for others who have more stuff than they, despise capitalism and would rather see people suffer than admit the science supporting man made "global warming" is proving to be more dubious with every finding. and science by "consensus" has always been the wrong approach. only demonstrable facts count, not a rope of consensus. can you say "politics and loads of free cash"? not just for the scientists and hangers on like Suzuki and Gore, and the cap-and-trade State and corporation connection (basically, corporate welfare at the expense of other businesses) but the whole Kyoto international welfare transfer scheme.

may the gods preserve us. i don't really believe Kyoto or anything like it can be implemented, due to logistics and human nature, but the fact that there are so many people on board shows me an incredible ability and willingness for entire masses of people to be suicidally fooled by subjective theory and ideology, rather than objective, tangible evidence, which can be understood by the five senses and critical thinking...

...waaell... maybe i shouldn't say "entire masses of people to be suicidally fooled". i should probably say a "willingness for entire masses of people to be ok with the idea of entire masses of people in other parts of the world to suffer for our collective high fibred morality and granola conscience.

...but, when it's all said and done, and when Mommy Earth starts cooling shortly (take a drive around Edmonton today), we're gonna have to extract all that co2 we will have been pumping and liquefying underground.

~happily, that shouldn't be too expensive. but whose gonna pay for it? yep. you guessed it.

...and all that expense and statism for an experiment in propaganda by the Left to control capitalism.

some children grow up. some don't.

~happy Earth Day!! :)

~update: PEN Canada and Bill c10~

2008-04-14T16:59:00.009-06:00

a few days ago i wondered if PEN Canada might consider "censorship" a total lack of government arts funding. I'm no closer to an answer, but here's an excerpt of a letter sent by PEN to the Senate:

"PEN Canada (the Canadian centre of International PEN) is a leader in the fight for freedom of expression internationally and in Canada and in that context we find extremely disturbing provisions of the bill that suggest agreement with public policy is a test for any kind of tax benefit for artistic productions.
"This marks a major departure from past practice and is simply not acceptable as a policy to be applied in determining which film projects can receive favourable tax treatment. Equally concerning, particularly for our members who are authors and journalists, is the prospect that if this principle were established in one piece of legislation, there would then be the inevitable attempt to expand it beyond film to other works of art or publications that could equally be requesting beneficial tax treatment."

in the second paragraph of this excerpt is an excellent point; of course the State would seek to expand the limits and control the moral agenda. that's what the State does, given a chance. that's why the whole premise of government arts funding is a dubious one (...and a tax exemption is a form of funding).

"There is a long standing principle that in funding the arts, government does not interfere in artistic expression. Nor does it dictate what has artistic merit; that has wisely been left in the hands of artists themselves which is where it should reside."

...and here is where your argument becomes moot. when you insist the State fund art, you are assuming an entitlement to others' money, and asking them to ignore your artistic agenda and accept and finance whatever you create. you're making an assumption based on a subjective morality. you're asking to have your cake and eat it too.

"PEN Canada strongly urges the Senate to hold hearings on Bill C-10, with witnesses from the arts community, and to present an amended bill to the House of Commons removing those provisions that would subject film and television productions to censorious and redundant assessment according to so-called 'public policy' criteria."

PEN makes an inarguable point here. picking and choosing suitable art, in the context of government funding, is censorious. but what do you expect? when you affirm and legitimise the State's bureaucracy, instead of staying away from it, you can't expect to be able to control it forever. you've fed your agendas to that beast and helped it grow, so now it's up to all of us to try and cut it's tentacles off...

...thanks a helluvalot, PEN Canada.

why don't you put your heads in a different space now, and start fighting to stop all arts funding by the State? the non-newspeak definition of "censorship" doesn't apply in Canada. anyone here can produce art of any kind without fear of government retaliation.

for now, this isn't China...

...which should tell you, you're fighting the wrong battle. but i guess free cash puts principle in the background.

(for the complete letter and context, go to www.pencanada.ca/media/letter_to_senate-billc10.pdf)

~an invite for the Globe and Mail: welcome to Libertyland~

2008-04-12T15:54:00.019-06:00

the Globe and Mail's Editorial Board is heading into territory it's never been before. they're defending a right against the State! for once, they are not attaching an agenda to the State. they must feel a bit awkward and unsure, but giddy and excited about where they're going. travelling to a place where the ideal of self sufficiency is cultivated and preserved must be a heady feeling for new arrivals who've lived unaware that they never really needed to rely on others to take care of them and make them feel safe.

they might not know it yet, but are travelling to a place where every person has a right to own property and exploit it as he sees fit; a place where the only speech that isn't free is that which slanders and speaks lies of a person; and a place where everyone is entitled, and indeed exhorted, to defend his life and property...

...this is more than just taking the Human Rights Commissions to task...

~welcome to Libertyland!... i know, it's a strange new place, with customs and responsibilities different from Humanrightsland. it's an exciting place; an objective place, where men are free to pursue their own ends, confident that the State will not crush their sacred consciences nor unconscionable whims in their private and business lives. should they choose to speak out in the public marketplace and argue and offend in healthy and unhealthy debate, there is no fear of being stifled by the current, government sanctioned victims-of-the-moment. in Libertyland it's understood that the Zeitgeist is a changeable and fickle spirit, whose sense of offense or what's acceptable to discuss in public is in a state of constant flux, so can be ignored, because free speech and private property rights are Constitutionally protected from him.

in Libertyland there is a verity at the heart of the philosophy:

"a person's rights must be protected, not by the State, but from it"...

in Libertyland, by law, no group is recognised because that would imply "victimhood", and the people who live here know very well that picking and choosing victims is a very subjective exercise. here, the only victims are those who have been physically coerced, or have suffered physical violence or theft from others. the citizens know that as long as property rights and free speech are protected, there is no danger to groups who look or behave differently from the rest; but if property and speech can be taken away from anyone by the State, the safety valve will be plugged, and the only outlet left for expression will be through violence. the people here understand and have learned from history.

however, there is a minority whose rights must be protected from the majority; this minority is a very special and protected class, and "visible", though very small, so must be protected Constitutionally from the changing winds of the Zeitgeist. the rights of this minority must be protected from an arbitrary State controlled by those with agendas, and the emotional whims of populism...

...this minority is the "Individual".

~so welcome, Globe and Mail, to the land where the marketplace of ideas, beliefs, convictions and thoughts are not bound or limited by anyone. these are your first tentative steps away from the pernicious arms of Mommystate. she wanted to keep us warm and safe, but lied to us all. the whole premise of Humanrightsland was based on a naive experiment called "Official Multiculturalism"; an experiment which recognised the rights of certain groups over others (how could it be any other way?); an ideal based not on objective reality, but subjective theory... an untested theory.

...Mommystate rocked us to sleep. but now we're waking up to a mess of national proportions. so come live in Libertyland. it's not Utopia, there are some uncomfortable personal responsibilities required, and life won't be perfect all the time, but once you taste it, you'll fight for it, and never go back.

~PEN Canada's heart is in the right place, but...~

2008-04-04T18:11:00.071-06:00

PEN Canada, the social liberal writer's club, is defending free speech and the Press. i'm sure some members are a bit wryly taken aback to find themselves standing beside conservatives/libertarians Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, and racist Marc Lemire.

heck, being a libertarian-type myself, i'm a bit taken aback to find a social liberal defending an ideal against the State.

wow... who'duthunkit.

well, good on 'em. they're doing the "write" thing, gol' durnit. free speech must be defended by and for everyone, from anti-racist do gooders to pro-racist skiheads; from human rights hippies to liberty loving gun totin' hillbillies; from anti-Israel social liberals and imams (little poke there... heh heh...) to pro-Israel private property rights defenders and neocons.

...too bad it's being defended by such a precious few.

anyway, it's nice to see.

~ok, the real post starts now:

i was reading a recent newspaper article about PEN's fight against the sec 13(1) thought crimes tribunal (don't you just love that word "tribunal"? it's so... mmm... papal) of the HRC gong show, and was interested in an incidental mention of Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men. Alberta Conservative MLA Victor Doerksen was denouncing the book being allowed in schools in Alberta, and PEN was defending it as a freedom of expression issue.

the Doerksen thing is old news, that being 1994. but i have a sneaking suspicion that PEN wanted the State to get mixed up in free speech issues against the State...

...i'll explain.

i don't know if Doerksen wanted the book and others like it banned from private, as well as public schools. i couldn't find references. i just read "schools" or "all schools" in various places around the web. this innocent lack of differentiation is telling of Canada's mixed up political atmosphere. on one hand, we have a supposedly "conservative" government apparently willing to extend it's reach into the private realm; and on the other, a supposedly intellectual organization that doesn't (refuses to?) differentiate between "public" and "private" institutions, and would impose rules on the private realm through the State.

...i wonder if PEN's rebuke went something like this:

"we demand that books be protected from government censorship and kept on (public) school shelves, and at the same time, that the government protect books from individual (private) schools that would censor books from their shelves".

so i wonder if PEN, without thinking it through, wanted the government out, and wanted the government in.

~...and i wonder what they think of the federal Tories' new controversy: Bill c-10.

this stupid bill, revising a stupid government program, is exposing the new Conservatives as an increasingly shallow bunch. it gives them the power to choose which films are worthy for government tax credits. how subjective can you get? how much of an exposed boob is or isn't acceptable for pete's sake?!

anyway, the hoopla revolves around a film called "Young People F******". the Tories don't think it deserves tax credits, and artsy fartsies are crying "censorship!".

first point: the State should stop funding art. nor should it censor art. apart from municipal zoning issues (porn on a billboard by a busy road anyone?... didn't think so) the markets will decide things nicely.
second point: artists who believe that because the government chooses not to help a film along, they are being censored, shows how institutionalised and dependant on the State they really are. uhhh... kids, you can make your little films yourselves, y'know. find your own funds. quit being snivellers with a false sense of entitlement, work harder, and keep your mitts off my taxes. i'm already paying way too much, and no one's stopping you from doing what you want to do.

i don't know if Bill c-10 is just a first step in a slow unprovocative process of dismantling arts funding by our so-called "Conservatives", but if it is, just get on with it, and enough of this death-by-a-thousand-cuts b.s. (like the HRC fiasco they're ignoring. do they know something we don't, and are they simply waiting for the right moment to drop the axe? hope so) .

~i like that PEN is speaking out for freedom of speech and the Press, and not just freedom of expression. both the talentless but provocative Piss Christ and Bomb-head Mohamed cartoon must be protected from State censorship.

..."freedom of expression". that's a funny one. anyone can hang rotten rabbit corpses from trees, make films about the joys of butt-rippin' anal sex, or stick out a tongue at the government. that's p.c., boring and as safe as milk. the only thing potentially controversial about this stuff is the stupid Bill c-10, allowing the government to feign displeasure for certain things on behalf of the delicate tastes of the masses (that's even funnier!).

Bill c-10 should be replaced with a new bill, killing all arts funding by the State.

...i can understand PEN's outcry because the bill allows arbitrariness, but i wonder if they would consider a total lack of government funding for the arts "censorship".

~all roads lead to the patchouli pig roast~

2008-03-24T17:30:00.043-06:00

i wasn't in Calgary March 21, but i'm assuming the aroma of pig roast, patchouli, beer, skunk weed, 2-stroke engine gas and unwashed hemp clothing was pretty overpowering.

yeah, i'm exaggerating, but witnessing the clash of two equally contemptible groups of antagonists Friday would have at least made my upper lip curl to the point of cramping, had i been there.

around 30 white supremacists and 150 anti-racist protesters converged and walked around downtown for a while, each making their mindless alarmist points. what a joke.

yup. 30 skiheads describing themselves as some kind of Aryan Guard were trying to puff themselves up to look bigger than their actual puniness, and the pantywaist hippies dogging them were falling for it. the l'il guys squeaked things like "we'll always meet them head on every time. i'm scared, but i'm not going to stand down, ever". hmm...they were scared of these nose runners? now that's scary. meanwhile, the slopeheads spewed inanities: "we're just proud to be white, that's all. why can't we be proud to be white?... duuuhh, hyukyuk".

well... you can be proud to be white, if that's part of what you define as your worth, you useless eaters. and you should have the right to walk around in groups with swastikas and cheesy banners, and blog all the hate you can muster. but keep this in mind: at the heart of the racist lies the collectivist; someone who is afraid to stand alone, and needs to hide within a group to feel secure. most racists are quite willing to turn to the State to fulfill their mandate. the most elemental, primitive, and subjective reasons for collectivism are racism and ethnocentricity. the theory of genetic superiority has no objective, empirical evidence of support. it is simply a premise used to control liberty and the individual through the State.

cowards.

...and the "anti-racist protesters"... different premise, same outcome.

ever wonder why some of these naive children dress in thirdworld attire, pierce themselves, cornbraid and dreadlock their hair in homage to thirdworld styles, and espouse thirdworld values? because they're thirdworld romantics who have never lived in the Third World, and have no real idea of the hardship and lack of opportunity within it. oh yeah, they pay lip service, but don't fully comprehend how these stifled people live day to day, while they themselves are blessed to live in an unprecedented time in history, in a part of the world that upholds individual liberty and capitalism. and they think it fashionable to treat their historically hard won fortune with contempt and disdain.

they've never experienced the fear of the late night knock on the door, the hunger and frustration of a needless famine, the sickness of an easily cured disease because of State corruption, an unfair or nonexistent election or, simply, a government telling them "you're not allowed to make your lives better apart from us".

but fundamentally, these peace creeps and attention seekers wear their uniforms of nonconformity to tell "Dad", "you can't tell me what to do!", though it was "Dad" who said "all we are sayyyinnng, is give war a chaaaance", then fought and died for liberty and a better life for these ingrates.

...and spare me the crap about how you've "backpacked" around some of these places with your bankcards and 'return' plane tickets, just in case things got a bit rough out there. this, does not experience, make. you wring your hands for the people, but have no idea why these places are backwaters, though many have incredible potential.

...so, i'll tell you. all successful nations share a common ideal to varying degrees:

~individual liberty. so simple, yet so profound: private property rights, freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms.

know why you should wring your hands, white bred dreads? because people in the Third World want freedom and "human rights", yet don't understand liberty, and refuse to fight collectivism.

...and neither were the "white supremacists" and "anti-racist protesters" on March 21 fighting collectivism. neither group has an interest in leaving citizens the hell alone and minding it's own business...

...as the skihead falls for the Socialist lie of a Perfect State, so falls the airhead for the Socialist lie of a Perfect World.

~falling off the precipice~

2008-03-19T18:08:00.022-06:00

reading the blogs berating Mark Steyn's America Alone, one finds a common thread. there seems to be a disconnect in the minds of social liberals regarding the meaning of "fascist". in his book, Steyn makes a few basic points:

one deals with the problem of a declining traditional European population base and civilizational exhaustion in the Western world, fueled by affluence, a growing cradle to grave welfare statism leading to infantilism and apathy, and a lack of common purpose within nations to preserve hard won national values and personal freedoms.
another deals with a growing Muslim population in the West. Muslim populations are on the rise because of a much higher birth rate than trad-westerners and continuing immigration.
...and the main point is a message to the US: America is on the right track, but it's a tenuous one, and if the people falter and lose sight of the principles of their hard-won Constitution, America can be lost.

contrary to what leftist bloggers may spout though, his solution to the problem of a shifting demography and displacement (and suicidal loss) of Western values is not a neo-con collectivist effort to rally a Final Solution to expel Muslims and make babies. he insists the only way to fix the situation, if it can be fixed, is to shrink the welfare State, slash social programs and bring men and women out of cloudy fairyland and back to the objective world to be Constitutionally forced back into self sufficiency and critical thought. i presume Steyn is a foreign policy hawk like me, but his views on domestic policy seem to be mainly libertarian.

Steyn is far from being a domestic policy neo-con.

the charges of "fascism" are bogus. to be a fascist, one must be a statist. a libertarian is not. a libertarian wants the State to fulfill a small role within the nation. equality of opportunity (not "outcome"), prevention of coercion and violence, and foreign policy should be about the only functions of government. libertarians know that individuals can handle economic and social issues better than the State.

by contrast, social liberals attach most agendas to the State. hmm... funny how that works, eh? statists accuse Steyn of being fascist, though fascists are statists. when there comes a crunch of ideals, social liberals view the "The Big Three" liberties with suspicion and try to control them through the State.

so, to sum up~ Steyn: individualist. social liberal detractors: statist.

who's closer to the cliff?

~quit whining, wipe your nose, and vote~

2008-03-06T18:42:00.015-07:00

the day of the Alberta election i asked some of the guys at work if they were voting. one said "no" because he wasn't particularly interested. fair enough. the last thing we need is a law compelling people to vote. apolitical people naturally tend toward soft-headed heart-think and the "free" stuff socialism offers, and to force them to vote would be a pernicious mistake.

comments made by a couple of other guys made me shake my head though. one fired the usual excuse that his vote didn't really matter anyway. this is incorrect. many elections have been fought and won down to the wire of a few votes; and new or re-elected leaders look at the popular vote to see trends and make policy based on them. a surge toward the left or right is duly noted. one vote is never insignificant.

the other guy trotted out the usual war horse about politicians being corrupt, not listening, or breaking promises anyway, "so why bother?".

simple answer: democracy is not perfect because human nature is not perfect. but with a proper Constitution, if the populace is involved in the process, corruption is kept mostly at bay. we dislike our politicians because they seem to be on a constant lookout for ways to gather power and lucre... and we would be somewhat correct in our assumption. but we fail to look at ourselves and admit the only difference between us and them is the level of desire and ambition to become involved in politics. we think politicians have the monopoly on the greed and power parts of human nature, and we refuse to see it in ourselves. i submit, if we found ourselves in these positions of power, we would all become indistinguishable. after a time in office i would be on the take to a certain extent, and so would you. human nature is the same in all of us, and eventually power would corrupt everyone.

this is why democracies, though flawed, are the best insurance against tyranny and oppression.

politicians are on the take? welcome to planet earth, and now that you're here, get used to human nature, and notice that we all share it. not one of us lacks the negative parts of it. so stop getting pissed off, precious. you're the same.

Constitutional democracies that have scheduled elections and recognise property rights and free speech thrive because there is a constant purging and purifying happening with every election. the process is not perfect, and there will always be some rot and corruption, but voting ensures this is kept to a minimum. the State is a naturally evil beast, but a necessary beast, so must be watched and battled constantly to prevent erosion of individual liberty. it is always trying to extend it's power and influence over the individual, and the more people vote (voluntarily) and help to cut off the tentacles as they grow, the smaller the beast becomes, and the freer the citizen remains.

so quit the false self righteous snivelling, wipe your nose, and vote.

~to the HRCs: you had it made. you went too far~

2008-03-05T18:41:00.019-07:00

having regrets, aren't you?

yup. you were busy, busy, busy under your little grey rocks, in your little grey rooms, sealed off from the eyes of a largely indifferent public. this is what you were counting on, wasn't it? you could pat yourselves on your beetley little backs and reinforce each other in the belief that the increasingly bizarre and outrageous claims that were coming your way were perfectly legitimate and would set further precedents for future claims against individuals speaking their thoughts and living their convictions.

you were happily and perniciously chipping away at the granite of liberty, which set the foundation of Canada's success as a nation. you didn't choose to agree that with every "right" given to someone, a "liberty" was taken away from someone else.

nope. and you were so busy building our glorious future, where the state would benevolently and carefully feed us our rights while eroding our private property rights and freedom of speech, you didn't realise something until it was too late:

...you went too far.

in your hubris, blindly confident in your own immunity and security, you took on two cases, which you should have known would expose your busy bureaucratic basements.

you took the claims against Macleans and the Western Standard magazines for the crimes of publishing their thoughts and printing the news... you went too far.

~for the audacity of deeming offensive speech illegal, you went too far.

~for forcing any citizen forward to be tried under you without objective proof of wrongdoing and at their own cost, while the complainant makes the taxpayer foot the bill (with the option of dropping the case, at no cost to himself, while the taxpayer and the defendant still must pay), you went too far.

~for an incredible 100% conviction rate, which no legitimate agency with checks and balances could possibly attain, and which proves your dubious character, you went too far.

~for allowing one person to bring forward around half of all claims under section 13 of the Act, and earn lucre from it, you went too far.

it wasn't enough that same sex couples charged property owners for not renting a hall for a wedding or a room at a b&b, and won (though the property owners cited religious convictions). these are just two examples of your crackdown on religious freedom (which actually boils down to property rights and free speech).
it wasn't enough to charge a printshop owner for refusing to print material he deemed objectionable, though it was no one's business how he ran his business, and there were other shops which would gladly have done it.
nor was it enough that hapless, pitiful crackpots and bigots were taken to task for printing or speaking offensive spew.
naw. you couldn't stick to the small time folks with not much cash nor time to spare because they were too busy trying to make a living and just get through your nonsense.
you couldn't stick to the increasingly bizarre cases, like the plastic surgeon who wouldn't perform labiaplasty on two transsexuals because he wasn't qualified to work on sex changed people.
...or the guy who was smoking pot in the doorway of a restaurant owner and charged the owner for kicking him out.
...or the guy whose employment was terminated from a military weapons systems company because he failed to disclose the fact that he was manic depressive, and had become non-functional by the end of the week.
...or, to quote Steyn, regarding another "case":

"Mr. Icke went a little odd a few years back and constructed an all-encompassing conspiracy theory starting from the fact that the Queen and other members of the royal family are blood-drinking shape-shifting humanoid reptilians descended from giant space lizards. Mr. Warman decided to shut him down, telling the Independent On Sunday:
'what benefit can there be in allowing him to speak?' "

...how bizarre... uhh, not the space lizard thing. i'm talking about the fact that someone can assume to stop another from speaking his mind, even though he's not quite rightly in it. what gall.

you could have stuck to the little fish, but you got ambitious, didn't you? you put on the big hook and went after the big fish.

wow, just imagine... if you could stifle freedom of the press and, in effect, put a Human Rights Commission overseer in every editorial board, the glorious hate free future would be that much closer to fruition.

but it didn't quite work, did it? surprised at your newly acquired notoriety, aren't you? weren't expecting it, hunh? thought the general public would be onside? see, that's what happens when the state allows you to be unaccountable, build a bureaucratic bubble around yourselves, and fuel a false sense of reality, despite a much different reality outside. and now everybody knows what an embarrassing bunch you are.

...and too bad you can't control the blogosphere. we know you'd like to. in fact, when one of your favourite customers applied to the CRTC to ban certain websites from reaching Canadians, i'll bet you were clasping your hands with glee. were you disappointed when you... (sorry, "this person") lost? yeah, you probably were. 'cause these days, more and more in fact, the blogosphere feeds the mainstream media. news and events, like the HRC shenanigans, which would normally be under the radar, are exposed by persistent bloggers.

...and you don't like that, do you? no, you don't.

damn it! and if you could only get the term "hate speech" broadened even further, you could hammer all the sites and blogs by bigots, racists and skiheads, and through guilt by association, all blogs "offensive" to the HRCs.

am i assuming too much? be honest with yourselves.

...i didn't think so.

~the mindblock of Canadian lawyers~

2008-02-24T18:45:00.022-07:00

i've been trekking around the Canadian blogzoo the last couple of days. my travels have led me to the social liberal end again. i've noticed the comments on the threads dealing with HRCs and section 13 in particular have taken our so-libs by surprise. by my estimate, well over 85% of commenters have denounced not just sec 13, but the role and legitimacy of HRCs generally. check out lawyer Jason Cherniak's blog. he admits he's a bit shocked. granted, some conservative bloggers have pointed readers to his site, but for a guy who supposedly has loads of fans, and gets 12000 hits per week, you'd figure there would be some defenders of the Human Rights Commissions. well, i guess there are. one out of eleven or twelve commenters... maybe.

i've noticed something else, too. many lawyers in Canada seem to glibly and collectively avoid talk of liberty, but uphold the ideals of human rights. anyone who tends to look upon the state with distrust and wants it to fulfill a very small role within a nation tends to understand that "liberty" and "human rights" are conflicting philosophies. liberty needs to be cemented into a Constitution which protects it from the state, the courts, and populism. the state, by nature, opposes liberty by granting power to the courts to override liberty, in the name of "human rights", and gladly gives individuals the means to erode liberty, through the courts.

here is a clear distinction, which our lawyers apparently don't want to understand. these guys seem to assume that rights should be granted by the state, not protected from the state. this seems to be an unquestioned universal ideal, and an unconscious, interwoven thread throughout the fibre of their being. there is simply no other concept to be thought. that's why property rights, free speech, and gun rights are such foreign and exotic ideals.

there are others besides Cherniak (who seems to have at least some fuzzy insight). Faisal Joseph, attorney for Mohamed Elmasry, is fighting for the role of HRCs to interfere with, and stifle freedom of speech and the press. there was no libel and no slander of individuals involved in the case against Maclean's magazine, but offensive speech, which is wildly open to interpretation, is apparently the only criterion necessary to shut down liberty... and don't forget "the Osgood 3" law students who are mouthpieces for Elmasry. these guys are our future lawyers? may the gods preserve us.

...and don't get me started on the surrealists at Law is Cool. these guys present the logic of college kids on their first hit of mescaline.

...which brings me to the embittered Warren Kinsella. at least he seems to be growing a thicker hide over his translucent skin these days, so i'm not too worried about a lawsuit from him.

but i'm seeing lawyers defend the indefensible all over the blogzoo.

~anyway, case in point: Cherniak recently posted an article defending section 13. the backlash was so overwhelming, he wrote a response.

allow me to tear it apart:

"Canadian Law and Human Rights"

"My thesis was that while we all have freedom of expression, we do not have a right to use our free expression to attempt to remove the freedom of expression from others on the basis of discriminatory grounds like skin colour or religion ."

whuuu...? how in hell can anybody take away someone else's freedom of expression through freedom of expression? do skihead racists have magical powers of "mute" that kick in and silence people when they take aim and spew their slurs? what typically subjective thought from Social Liberal Fairyland.

"I must admit that I was quite surprised by the response. Apparently, we Canadians are living in a police state where we are all constantly at risk of being thrown before undemocratic Human Rights Tribunals that can take away our freedom of expression. You would never know that we still have regular elections and that almost nobody in Canada will ever see the bad end of a Human Rights complaint."

yeah, but Jason, those who do see the aptly described "bad" end of a Human Rights complaint have a 100% guarantee of being convicted, at their own cost, without objective proof needed by the HRC.

you were surprised eh? get ready to be depressed when the tide of common sense reaches the lawmakers.

"Meanwhile, the courts developed our laws. If you successfully sued somebody for assault, you could win a monetary award because a person spoke to you in a threatening manner. If you sued somebody for libel, the defendant had to prove that what he wrote was true. Meanwhile, courts also protected the rights of bar owners to refuse to serve black men and the beaches of Toronto had signs that read "no dogs or Jews". All of this was perfectly legal because we had no legal rights other than those passed by the legislature or developed by the courts. The main right was that if you owned property, you could do just about anything you wanted with it as long as it was not illegal."

libel and slander of an individual are the only legitimately actionable offences in the context of liberty. objective loss can occur.

threats are not "assault". this is subjective and illogical.

private owners of property had and should have every right to discriminate. an objectively negative impact upon individuals only occurs when the state discriminates against them. in the free market there's a bar somewhere that will gladly accept the customer.

publicly owned property, such as beaches, must accommodate all citizens.

"The main right was that if you owned property, you could do just about anything you wanted with it as long as it was not illegal." you took the words right out of my mouth.

"If you believe that people should still have the property right to discriminate, then you will earn no sympathy from me. However, it is reasonable to ask whether human rights commissions were the right way to implement human rights codes. Why not just create a civil defence of "discrimination" and leave it to develop in the courts?"

i'm not asking for sympathy. but Mr Cherniak, if we didn't have human rights codes we wouldn't need to ponder the confusing choice between human rights commissions, and civil defence "discrimination" law codes dealing with private property rights and freedom of speech. i'm glad you're thinking about the issue, though.

~please read his entire post for full context. and note this casually inserted phrase:

"Over time, the change may evolve so that people go straight to court instead of the tribunal."

how generous, that the state may someday benevolently deign to hear a man defend his liberty in a court of law, rather than a tribunal.

~a bratty sense of entitlement~

2008-02-24T10:11:00.008-07:00

i kinda have to shake my head at Mohamed Elmasry and his 3 acolytes. these 3 law students actually believe they should have the right to trample on the free Press by forcing Macleans magazine to present Elmasry's point of view within it's pages. the spoiled brattiness is unprecedented.

what's next? an HRC overseer on the Editorial board?

any institution privately purchased is private property, be it residential or commercial. the argument that a privately owned commercial building or publisher is considered a "public" building is surreal and Orwellian. a restaurant or newspaper should be as open to the public, or not, as the owner(s) allow(s). to bend meanings of words to suit a philosophy or agenda is misleading. if a skihead decides he doesn't like a particular group or type of person in his restaurant, for any reason, so be it. the markets may punish him. there is always another restaurant gladly willing to accept the customer and the extra revenue. as long as the state stays the hell out of the business of private business, and doesn't restrict freedom of movement on publicly owned property, the markets will accommodate everyone. just hop in your car or publicly owned bus, flip the bird at the restaurant owner, and head to an accommodating business.

the customer may always be right, but should leave his sense of entitlement at the door, and reserve it for the adjoining sidewalk paid for by his taxes. he can use his freedom of speech to denounce the offending business.

the audacity to assume personal authority over someone else's property shows a contemptible and snotnosed sense of entitlement. the "Osgoode 3" law students show it by demanding space in Macleans for their point of view. the idea that the state can mandate "equal representation" for anyone and his dog through the private press, instead of leaving the playing field open for everyone ambitious enough to start his own publication and present his own views, is ultimately fascist. the state can then support anyone it deigns, or denounce anyone it pleases.

...and the supposed "victim" becomes the perpetrator.

may the gods forbid, but state enforced equalisation of the Press would make victims of us all.

~HRCs and hurt feelings~

2008-02-22T22:49:00.078-07:00

recently in the cyberspace zoo there have been insults, barbs, and litigation threats hurled about like monkeys flingin' poop. it's funny, and at the same time... bemusedly fascinating...

Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant, and various bloggers have been waging a wacky war on the world wide web with Warren Kinsella and his wonky wankers. the issue revolves around the legitimacy of Human Rights Commissions in Canada, and whether or not they've overstepped their bounds and are now eroding freedom of speech in the name of human rights.

but the fact that Kinsella's camp seems so ready to talk litigation, though each side hurls equal amounts of misrepresentation at the other (which.. let's face it, makes it fun to read), makes me cock an eyebrow. maybe this bunch won't sue, but the fact that he continuously voices that supposed option, while Levant and Steyn et al appear to gleefully revel in the joy of the fight and seem never to be personally offended, shows me where each party is at: one side looks like a whining collective of precious pantywaists with thin skins who run, sucking their thumbs, to the arms (and teat) of Mommy State, while the other seems to take pride in the fact that it doesn't need the state to fight it's battles.

... in the context of the argument, this is very telling.

but what makes this really disturbing is the line seemingly drawn by one crowd concerning free speech. where does it end, and someone else's "rights" begin? every "right" given to one by the state ensures that a liberty is eroded and taken away from someone else. do hurt feelings and taken offense give one the right to sue? what about outrage? a racist slur? incitement to violence? how far should free speech be allowed to go?

can a person or group be affected by racist, ethnic, or groupist slurs? can people within a nation that upholds free speech be susceptible to verbal incitements to violence? why do some societies succumb to violence triggered by speech, while others remain immune?

the answer is clear when we frame the debate around liberty and what it truly means in an imperfect world.

property rights: at first glance, this liberty may not seem relevant to the argument, but property rights and free speech are interconnected. the most fundamental example is that of a home owner expressing his views on his front lawn, one way or another, with a wall Constitutionally built around his property line, protecting him from the state. the highest example is freedom of the press. a private newspaper owner has the right to say anything he wants, without state coercion, provided he doesn't knowingly lie about an individual. no property rights, no free speech.
free speech: any speech which does not slander or libel an individual is free speech. there are "closed system" libertarians who believe all speech is free speech. i can't venture that far into lollipop land. lies can economically affect an individual and hurt his reputation, and he must have legal recourse to restore his finances and good name. however, hyperbole and insults are not lies, so suck it up. if my feelings are so easily bruised, i have self esteem issues i need to address. lying about an individual affects that individual, but lying about a group only affects that group if sanctioned by the state. in a free market of ideas, there is no such thing as slander and libel of a group. members of that group can defend themselves and chastise bigots by exercising free speech.
~conservatives and social liberals tend to agree that "incitement to violence" crosses the line of free speech. i disagree. i see it as a litmus test. in a society that largely embraces liberty, violence against a group rarely if ever occurs. ironically, in a nation where offensive speech is stifled by the state, all citizenry are not recognized equally, and/or dissenting opinions are illegal, the safety valve is plugged, and the only outlet left for expression is through violence and coercion. Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, China etc, were and are examples of what happens to minority groups when free speech (and property rights) are squashed, or have never really been recognised Constitutionally. Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia are more recent examples. it will be interesting to see what happens in Europe soon. but an arian skihead in Yahoo, Ontario with a racist blog, or an incendiary Muslim cleric in Vancouver is not going to have success in Canada, unless liberty is stifled by State institutions like HRCs which have been proven, time and again, to become radicalized.

so leave the bigots and skiheads alone. let them babble into their megaphones, rally the ghosts of a totalitarian past, and hang themselves with the ropes we give them. there are very few of them anyway.

the defenders of human rights commissions in Canada don't seem to understand the perniciousness of their philosophy. these commissions were originally set up to protect people from rental discrimination by landowners and refused entry by business owners etc., not to stifle expressed thought. section 13 of the CHRC undermines so much of what they are trying to protect, they don't realize that equating hurt feelings and taken offense with "hate speech" (whatever the hell that is) cheapens their entire argument and makes a laughing stock of Canadian law. and taking the law out the hands of the courts and putting it into the hands of quasi-judicial systems, apparently accountable to no one, ensures an arbitrary process, leaving the defendant at the mercy of bureaucrats with varying philosophies and agendas. coupling this with the vague open-endedness of the wording of the clause ensures that the chosen Flavour Of The Month "victims", like... say... a radical Islamist who expresses "hate speech" with impunity, won't sit in the defendant's chair at an HRC interrogation.

...and no legitimate state commission has a 100% conviction rate, forcing the defendant to cover his own costs, while the taxpayer foots the bill of the plaintiff.

there are many, like MP Keith Martin who, laudably, want section 13 repealed. i want the HRCs repealed. they are unnecessary in a nation that upholds liberty.