Ottawa bans ‘Atheist bus ads’

February 19, 2009 — xanthippa

I am shocked at this.

Ottawa buses have sported all kinds of ads – religious or not – which I thought were, well, ‘offensive’.

Few years ago, they ran that ad which had attempted to lure children into the hands of pedophiliac priests:  an outwardly ‘pro-religion’ ad that urged EVERYONE (including underage children, who, of course, can read) to ‘go to church’ to ‘get guidance’.

If one reads its meaning in the ‘commonly understood’ way (at least, commonly understood among the people I know – the ad raised a lot of comments when it ran), it is simply and unequivocally luring children into the ‘dens of pedophiles’ also known as ‘Churches’. (Actually, about 15 years ago, a stranger who happened to be a ‘Mount Cashel’ survivor gave me a very poorly written, yet highly personal and extremely convincing note to warn me that letting my children near a Christian Church is putting them in the hands of pedophiles.  I have not found any evidence to disbelieve him – to the contrary.  When I took my son to a Pentacostal Sunday School, I found a person I knew to have a sexual orientation to ‘children’ – but I do not know if he ever acted on it – to be in charge of the program….and, when I alerted the Church hierarchy, they told me that since he had ‘found Christ’, it was important that they give him a ‘second chance’.  NOT WITH MY SON!!!)

We all know that many pedophiles like to use the ‘channel of divine authority’ to force young people into sex and silence.  It does not mean that every priest is a pedophile, only that pedophiles like to infiltrate the ranks of clergy, because the blackmail of ‘eternal damnation’ is a powerful tool to manipulate.  And, it does explain why the prices of houses within sight of a rectory (or, indeed, a Church) tend to be below the expected market value…. most responsible parents are just not willing to expose their kids to that high a risk!

So, ‘bus ads’ urging young people to ‘go to church’ can, in an undeniable way, be perceived as sending them into an environment where they are much more likely to encounter a pedophile than they would among the general population.  And, in any ‘moral’ judgment, this makes such ads ‘offensive’!

If, on the other hand, one were to read the ‘go to church’ ad in a different way (which, frankly, many Christians have assured me was the intent of the ad), the ad becomes offensive on a completely different  level.  Should the meaning of the ad have been ‘come to our churches when you are most vulnerable, so our priests can emotionally blackmail you to submit to our dogma so you will give us money – and thus buy God’s love and approval’ – well, frankly, that is rather offensive, too.  People who are going through a hard time and are vulnerable are the last ones who should go to places that tell them that ‘giving away money in this world’ will ‘buy them salvation in the next one’!

I also find it offensive in the extreme when some religious people misconstrue the meaning of ‘morality’:  instead of defining ‘morality’ as ‘deep, introspective reasoning to choose the best – least damaging/bad/evil – course of action based on their own experience, reasoning and their specific circumstances’, many religious people reduce ‘morality’ to ‘obedience to a set of dogmatic rules’.  That, in my opinion, is reducing ‘morality’ to the level of ‘puppy-training’ – and something which offends me on the intellectual, spiritual and moral levels!

To sum this up:  I find ads telling people that ‘going to church’ is ‘a good thing’ to be offensive in the extreme!

Yet, ads urging people – especially emotionally vulnerable people – to ‘go to church’ were deemed ‘acceptable’ and ran on the sides of Ottawa buses.

And, that is a good thing:  matters of freedom of expression are more important than any ‘sensitivities’.  Protecting the right of people to get their message out (provided they pay for it from their own pocket) – however much I despise their message – is much more important than whether or not I (or other people) find that message ‘offensive’!

Today, the sides and rears of Ottawa busses sport a different kind of an ad:  ones paid for by our own local ‘Cruella deVille’ and her little furrier empire!

Please, do not get me wrong.  I think that if an animal is killed for food, it is only reasonable to use every part of the animal, including its skin or fur.  However, that is a very a different thing from raising animals in small, crowded cages and then electrocuting them (so the pelt has no holes) and using only their skin to create a ‘luxury product’.  And, it is this latter practice that I find extremely offensive.

Actually, I asked a few of my Hindu friends what they thought about these ads:  they were not particularly fond of them, to say the least!  Their religious sensitivities were deeply offended by the ads promoting frivoulous ‘luxury furs’!

After all, NOT ascribing animals a soul equal to the soul humans have IS just as much of a a religious prejudice as NOT ascribing them one is….   Please, think about this, long and hard.

Yet, these ads urging people to indulge their religious prejudice that animals have no soul (or, at least, not one worth considering) and to indulge themselves by wearing their pelts as an expression of luxury – these are allowed to run!!!  Offensive in the extreme!!!  (Please, ask PeTA what they think of these ads!!!)

And, that is a good thing:  matters of freedom of expression are more important than any ‘sensitivities’.  Protecting the right of people to get their message out (provided they pay for it from their own pocket) – however much I despise their message – is much more important than whether or not I (or other people) find that message ‘offensive’!

Yet, ads urging people not to take their religion to the point of extreme – not to obsess about it, to the detriment of their quality of life (and those near and dear to them) – THOSE ads are deemed to be ‘offensive’?!?!?

I have heard objections to these ads, based on the grounds that ‘seeing them might make people do immoral things’!  Yeah, right… Yet, if that is so….

Well, then, what about a person so obsessed with his religion, he is planning to strap a bomb to his body and blow up himself, along with a busload of schoolkids?  What if THAT person sees the bus and decides not to chance it?  What IF God is NOT real – who would give him the 72 virgins?

Would that be so bad?

Or, what about the father who is planning to clense his family’s honour in his daughter’s blood?  What if HE sees the ad, and realizes that killing his daughter on the GAMBLE that there IS a God just may not be worth it?

Would saving the life of one girl not be worth offending a few people?

Or, what about the man who loves his wife, but who is told by his spiritual adviser that it is not just permitted, but ‘necessary for her salvation’ that he beat her?  It is not so long ago that Christian priests preached this from the pulpit – and many Muslim Imams still do!  So, what if a man who believes them sees this – and it helps him find the courage to respect his wife and treat her like an equal – which is what he wanted to do in the first place, were it not for the ‘religious teachings’???

Would THAT be so offensive?

I suppose that some people think so.  I guess the only time Jews, Christians and Muslims gang together is to lynch atheists – and to silence the voices of reason that threaten the power of clergy to control the lives of nice people.

How ‘offensive’!!!

UPDATE: This week ( ending March 14th), the Ottawa City Council has reversed the ruling and the ‘atheist ads’ will be allowed to appear on the sides of busses.

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in atheism, debate, education, freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

Lowell Green: another martyr of the ‘pc’ fascists?

February 10, 2009 — xanthippa

If you follow my blog, you are aware that I am ‘Pro-Free-Speech’… and you might have also picked up on the fact I am a huge fan of Mr. Lowell Green.

Mr. Green is an open-line radio show host – funny, intelligent and outspoken.  Brash – perhaps.  Well-informed – always!  If you live outside the Ottawa area, you can listen to his show online, at CFRA.com, 10am-12noon, EST.

Over the more than 50 years in broadcasting, Mr. Green has been a thorn in the side of those who value appearances over substance, ideology over reality, political correctness over the truth.  He has also penned 3 books:  ‘The Pork Chop– and Other Stories : a Memoir’, ‘How the Granola-Crunching, Tree-Hugging Thug Huggers Are Wrecking Our Country’ and  ‘It’s Hard to Say Goodbye’.  (I have each one – autographed by Mr. Green!)  The middle one is my personal favourite.

Now, Mr. Green has come under attack for – you guessed it – something he said.  Not only is it an attack, it is a ‘judgment’, pronounced against him, by CRTC, the body which regulates the Radio and Television station licensing in Canada.

The judgment:  his opinion-based talked show contained uninformed discussion and – he was rude.

It’s not about Lowell Green.

It’s not about what he did or did not say on that show – or if his opinion was or was not informed.  There are (I hope) no laws against being stupid…

Yet, he was censored.  Huge apology announcements run by his station – wording clearly designed to besmirch his good name.

During the whole process of the CRTC hearing, he had exactly zero opportunity to defend himself.

He was not even allowed to know the name of the person (or organization) which launched a complaint against him.  He was not even allowed to know if it was one or more complaints.  Nothing.

This reminds me of the time my son was – during school lunch-hour – attacked from behind (so he had not seen them) by a group of school-mates.  It was officially classified by the police as a ‘racially-motivated hate-crime’.  Yet, neither he, nor we – his parents, were ever allowed to know the identity of the school-mates who attacked him, or what had happened to them as a result.

Some society we are becoming!

Sorry…my brain is somewhat mushy while I am fighting this nasty flu that is ‘making the rounds’, but this is outrageous!  Until I get somewhere ‘reasonable’, please, listen to Michael Coren’s show with Ezra Levant, where this incident is being discussed:

I LOVE that line:  “SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT!”

P.S.:  Since when does ‘offensive’ or ‘aggressive’ = ‘vilification’??? Do people no longer learn English (and, I say this an an immigrant – who LOVES the English language!)

Posted in debate, freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Defining some more terms…

December 28, 2008 — xanthippa

Words matter.

Words matter a lot.

They carry a direct meaning (and, perhaps, an implied meaning) as well as hidden ‘colouring’ with a number of associations, sometimes conscious, sometimes subconscious.

This ‘colouring’ changes and evolves within a culture – and can be quite different in another language.

I am not a linguist.  Yet, during my life, I have picked up a few languages:  some of them I am fluent in, some are shadowy and hiding in the recesses of my memory… and will only come ‘flooding back’ if I immerse myself in that language.  In other words, I am not speaking as an expert, rather as just an observer.  (And, I must admit, misuse and misrepresentation of the core meaning of words causes my blood pressure to rise.)

Yes, in my ever-obsessive way, I have contemplated starting a ‘Wiki’ where people from all over the world could post their particular linguistic and cultural colouring associated with a particular word….  But, at this point, this is just a fun contemplation!

Let me give a few ‘simple’ examples: 

Cat – this word’s plain meaning is rather straightforward:  a domestic animal, felis catus, of the family felidae…  Cute and cuddly, clever and aloof – we have all met cats we have loved, and perhaps a few we disliked (I know I have met both kinds). 

Yet, in English, ‘cat’ can also mean a ‘guy’, when in the context of jazz.  And, calling a woman ‘catty’ is no compliment – it implies she is gossipy, capricious and petty.

Switch to Slavic languages – calling a woman ‘catty’ (or a ‘cat’) means she is graceful in a very sexy way!  By culturally highlighting very different aspects of ‘cat’, it is a compliment, not an insult, to call a woman ‘catty’!

Bitch – the plain meaning means ‘female dog‘:  a domesticated animal, canis lupus familiaris, of the family canidae…  Dog is a loving and loyal companion of humans, the first domesticated animal to be ‘in’ the house, rather than ‘outside’ it… and thus ‘in’ the social sphere of humans, inside our ‘monkeysphere’, rather than ‘outside’ it!  A dog is ‘man’s best friend’!

In English, the feminine form, ‘bitch’ has some very definite negative connotations:  from ‘submissive’ (as in, someone was ‘made somebody’s bitch’) to argumentative and quarrelsome (especially as applied to women).  The explression ‘son of a bitch’ is definitely an insult – and is understood as such.  Curiously, the word ‘bitch’ does not carry any of the positive connotations of the term ‘dog’.  (I wonder why – and what it says about the attitude of the ‘Anglo-linguistic culture’s’ attitude towards ‘female friendships’…but that is going off on a tangent…)

Again, looking at Slavic languages, the word ‘bitch’ has quite unrelated connotations!

In Russian, for example, the direct translation for ‘dog’ is (and I am transliterating – perhaps not perfectly, as my Russian if very rusty) ‘sobaka/sabaka’ (spelled, it transliterates as ‘sobaka’ but due to emphasis, it is pronounced more like ‘sabaka’) is a feminine word.  Thus, the word ‘dog’, directly translated into Russian, becomes ‘female dog’=’bitch’!  Yet (and I would like to be corrected here if I am in error) the term does not carry the negative connotations of ‘bitch’!

In Czech, the most direct translation of ‘bitch’ is ‘psina’, which carries the connotation of ‘having a really fun time – while remaining within the social boundaries of politeness/proper etiquette’.  There are other terms for ‘female dog’, but they are either scientific (‘fena’) – devoid of cultural colouring – or or extremely contrived and ‘artificial’-sounding (psice).  And while I am not fluent in all the Slavic languages, I do speak a few – and in none of the ones I speak (as far as I am aware) does the core expression for ‘female dog’ have negative connotations!

I recall, as a kid, reading books translated from other languages, which contained the insult ‘son of a bitch’:  I was puzzled!  I could not understand why somebody would think this expression was in any way insulting, even though from the context I understood it was meant to be bad….

Therefore, in my ever-obsessive way that cannot let go of ‘patterns’, I find ‘words’ to be important: not due to their primary meaning, but because of what they imply outside of this narrow interpretation.

(Aside:  I suspect that some kids – especially ones who are obsessively concerned with ‘accuracy’ of expressions – may start out learning language naturally.  Then, as they discover that the words have additional meanings they were not aware of – the ‘colouring’ of the word, in my description – they may become unable to use that word any longer as they know they cannot use it accurately, without this additional layer of meaning…  This is just an anecdotal observation, but I would not be surprised if the ‘natural early language development’ followed by ‘regression’ which is sometimes seen in Autistic children was, in some nebulous way, connected to this principle.)

If this ‘colouring’ is so very different, affects so much the non-primary meaning of words as simple as ‘cat’ and ‘dog’, how much deeper are these different connotations experienced – consciously or not – when we talk about concepts as personal and deeply held as spirituality, faith and religion?  They have the power to affect our reasoning without us being aware of it!  Yet, if I plan to present a comprehensive view of ‘The Big Picture’, I cannot avoid the area of influence on individual humans – as well as on the evolution of whole societies – which ‘spirituality’, ‘faith’, ‘religion’, ‘dogma’ and ‘belief’ and their specifics have. 

I must admit – the concept of ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ has always fascinated me.  Perhaps because as an Aspie, I lack the bit of brain structure required for ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ (religious meaning), the ability other people had to ‘believe’, to ‘have faith’, had puzzled and attracted me from when I first became aware of it.  While in my teens, I did a lot of reading up on different faiths.  And even though my education is in Physics, every one of my ‘electives’ was used to study anthropology and sociology of religions (I actually came only 1/2 credit short of a minor in this, but thought a degree in Physics with a minor in Anthropology of Religion was not likely to make me ’employable’… so I made a conscious choice not to take that last course.  Yet, this did not prevent me from doing the reading, plus more…)

Therefore, before I delve into examining the role of various religious beliefs and various religious organizations (they truly are very separate from each other, even if related) on ‘The Big Picture’, I think it essential that I take some time to define a few terms.  Yes, these are not going to be ‘new’ terms…  However, tracing their origins and ‘pure’ meaning, as well as the cultural change they had undergone (and defining in what sense and with what ‘colouring’ I use these terms) is important if I am to convey my perceptions of what is happening accurately.

In the next little while, I will make a post for each of the ‘big’ terms I am talking about, in the hope that this will both aid in linking to them when I use them in my later descriptions of ‘stuff’, but also in order to generate ‘term-specific’ comments, corrections and recommendations.  So, if you have something to add to these upcoming posts, please, do so.  It will be most appreciated!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in debate, language, perceptions, society. Tags: , , , , . 2 Comments »

Muslims Against Sharia: ‘Hypocrisy in Action’

December 27, 2008 — xanthippa

Here is an interesting post on ‘Muslims Against Sharia’s’ Blog:  ‘Hypocrisy in Action’:

After listing a number of headlines from many various ‘news sources’ from around the world which unanimously decry the Israeli air raid on Gaza, Muslims Against Sharia ask this key question (emphasis and colour accent is theirs):

Where were Egypt, Russia, OIC,

EU, Britain, Sarkozy, US and Austria

when Hamas was pounding Israel

with daily barrage of rockets?

 

Where indeed…

At least, many people are now asking the question.  (Yes, I am an idealistic optimist…)  And, ‘questioning’ is the first step towards change. 

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in debate, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , . 34 Comments »

There is more than one way to stop ‘free speech’

September 29, 2008 — xanthippa

Many of us who are 100% ‘free speechers’ wave our hands dismissively and tune out when somebody raises the issue of ‘fair use rights’ on copyrighted materials.  This is a mistake. 

Just as ‘free speechers’ are not just a bunch of racists and rednecks, no matter how loudly their opponents laber them as such, ‘fair use rights’ advocates are not just a bunch of ‘pirates’ and ‘thieves’.  If they were, they would simply steal the content – and certainly not bother to stand up and fight for their rights.

What we need to recognize that these issues are connected:  both revolve around finding the ‘right’  balance of rights versus limitations.  Once we recognize the similarities between these two seemingly separate issues, we can better understand how to arrive at a balance we can all be satisfied with – at least a little bit.

Just like we are willing to put limits onto ‘free speech’ – the proverbial ‘yelling ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theatre’, and similar limits – it is also justifiable to place limits on the use of ‘music’, ‘movies’, books’ and other intellectual content meant for consumers.  In the first case, ‘public safety’ is threatened.  In the second case, the rights of the creators of this ‘IP content’ need to protect their investment and their ability to reap a fair compensation for having created it.

This does make sense.  The trick is, and always has been, in finding acceptable balance of rights. 

The problem arises when the laws are written so as to only protect one side’s rights, at the expense of the other.  It is no less oppressive than having unreasonable limits placed on one’s freedom of speech, in order to protect some from ‘hurt feelings’. 

But there is another connection, a very fundamental one, between these two issues:  both seek to restrict communication.  Limiting freedom of speech imposes limitations on an individual as to what they are, or are not, free to communicate.  So called ‘fair use’ laws seek to control the means of communication….

Recently, I watched a program that drove home the difference.  It is one-hour long (and part 2 of a 2-part series), but it is well worth watching.  Here, in brief, is the background…

In Sweden, there used to be different ‘fair use’ laws than in North America.  Under Swedish laws, it was legal to set up a company called ‘Pirate Bay’ – even though this was, at that time, illegal under US laws.  The ‘Hollywood industry’ used its influence to pressure the White House, which, in turn, pressured the Swedish government, into police raids and materiel confiscation against ‘Pirate Bay’, even though their own attorneys advised the government that the operation was perfectly legal…..  Part 1 of the show, ‘Steal This Film’ deals with this.  I found the segments of it on YouTube here, here, here, and here.

Part 2 discusses the very interesting issue of how these ‘fair use’ laws are (and are not) balanced – and why.  And yes, how this directly impacts ‘freedom of speech’.  Very interesting, the whole lot of it.  The links for the YouTube version are here, here, here, here, here and here.

While Part 2, section 2 has a comprehensive history of ‘copyright’ and its implications from book printing on (and thus VERY much worth watching), it is Part 2, section 4 that sums up – in my mind – the essence of this debate.  It is not just about IP – it is about the control of the means of delivering ‘culture’ to us all…  And whoever controls the means of delivery also controls which voices will be heard.

I suppose one could see the ‘fair use’ battle as the corrollary to the ‘free speech’ battle.  While one is a battle to allow one to speak freely, the other one is the battle to allow one to be heard freely.  After all, if one is allowed ‘free speech’ – but only in isolation, where what one says is not actually heard by any other human being – it is a hollow victory…

It’s something to think about.

Posted in debate, freedoms, human nature, opression, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Ezra Levant’s speech to the US Congress

July 12, 2008 — xanthippa

Yesterday, Mr. Ezra Levant spoke as an expert witness to the US Congress on the topic of human rights, freedom of speech and their erosion through lawfare and ‘soft jihad’.  Here is the link to the entire speech, from which come these following excerpts:

“Canadian human rights commissions, however, are not respectful of the sensitivities of all religions. Less politically correct faiths are regularly prosecuted by them. This May, an Alberta pastor named Stephen Boissoin was given a lifetime gag order, never to say anything critical of homosexuality – not in a church sermon, not even in private e-mails. As well, in what can only be called a Maoist verdict, he has been ordered to renounce his religious beliefs, and to publish a self-denunciation in the local newspaper.”

…

“By the way, the truth of what you say is not a defence. And at the Maclean’s magazine trial last month, half a day was spent determining whether their jokes were funny. They even had a joke expert.

Don’t laugh – literally. Just three weeks ago, a comedian was ordered to stand trial for telling off-colour jokes in a night club. Warning to Chris Rock: don’t bother coming to Canada”

…

“Because we didn’t fight for freedom of speech and freedom of conscience for people who were hard to like, now we’re having to fight for those fundamental freedoms for ourselves. It’s always better to fight in the first ditch rather than the last one.

The legal onslaught against freedom of speech and religious pluralism continues. There are 14 human rights commission in Canada, employing 1,000 people, and with an annual budget of $200-million. It’s an industry, and it needs social strife to stay in business. So it positively drums up discontent. This spring in Alberta, 60,000 new immigrants were taught English as a Second Language using a workbook all about how to file grievances, including against un-funny jokes.”

The conclusion of Mr. Levant’s speech is eloquent, and very, very powerful:

So what can Americans do? 

1. The first thing you can do is what you always do: continue to monitor the erosion of freedom around the world, including through Congressional committees like this one. Publish annual reports shaming foreign countries for their abuses of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Put Canada on that list, to let our government know what they’re doing isn’t acceptable.

2. And rededicate yourselves to your First Amendment. Understand that the erosion of freedom doesn’t always happen with a bang – it can happen with a whimper. And that, when it comes to free speech, it’s usually unpopular people who are censored first. But if they can go for a neo-Nazi yesterday, it’s Geno’s Steak House today, and then a Christian pastor or a news magazine tomorrow.

I believe in a pluralist society where I can be Jewish, he can be Christian, she can be Muslim, and we all get along peacefully – we can agree to disagree about political or religious matters. The use of our own Western laws to crush such disagreement, and end healthy debate, is a threat to all of us, and the U.S. Congress should be on guard.”

 

 

 

(All emphasis is Mr. Levant’s)

Brilliant!

In a related development, the very radical Imam who brought a complaint against Mr. Levant and his then magazine, Western Standard – and thus starting the process which had turned Mr. Levant into ‘an expert’ in this field, may indeed be becoming less radicalized…  Unless I am much mistaken, this is the very first radical Imam who has actually become more moderate after exposure to our ‘western’ values and publicly said so.

 Via Blazing Catfur, the Pete Vere editorieal article in SooToday.com  which prints S. Soharwardy’s letter:

“Response to recent human rights decisions

by Syed Soharwardy

When I initiated my complaint against Mr. Levant, I saw human rights commissions as a non-violent means of resolving differences among Canadians.

I was not aware of the controversies between the commissions and Canada’s faith communities. I am thinking specifically of my friend Fred Henry, the Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary.

Upon learning about the difficulties he and other faith communities have encountered with the commissions, I withdrew my complaint against Mr. Levant.

One of the reasons I chose Canada as my adopted homeland is because of our country’s great respect for religious freedom.

In Canada, I am free to be good Canadian and a good Muslim. There is no contradiction between the two.

In listening to the experiences of Bishop Henry and Pastor Boissoin, I realized how precious religious freedom is to our country and how easily freedom is lost.

Yes, I have often expressed concerns over Islamophobia.

Some of the portrayals of Muslims in the media have been painful – so much so, that I worried when I set out across Canada on the multifaith walk against violence.

However, the reaction from ordinary Canadians could not have been more hospitable. Canadians of all races, colours, religions, and ages have welcomed me, a Muslim man with brown skin, into their homes, their neighbourhoods and their communities.

They have walked with me, eaten with me and prayed with me.

They have expressed strong concern for preserving our civil liberties – which includes freedom of speech and religion.

They have also expressed a strong desire to end violence in Canada and around the world.

This experience has taught me that we can only end violence when we respect the freedom of all Canadians.

There will always be pockets of Islamophobia in Canada, just like there are still pockets of anti-Semitism, racism and sexism.

However, I have learned that the best way to dispel misconceptions between our various cultures and communities is for us to meet face to face and learn from each other’s similarities and difference.

This can only be accomplished in a society that respects freedom of expression, freedom of religion and all of our other democratic freedoms.”

As ‘they’ say:  we live in interesting times!

Posted in debate, freedoms, human nature, immigrants, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , . 2 Comments »

Death penalty for blogging!

July 8, 2008 — xanthippa

The ‘blogosphere‘ may be be a virtual community, but the social connections it creates are very, very real.  These connections cross boundries:  political, cultural, linguistic, + + +…  In a very real sense, the blogosphere transends these boundries and makes them irrelevant.

This threatens all those who would control their populace, forcing them to adhere to only one ideology (regardless of what the particular ideology may be), limiting them to access only those opinions approved by these rulers.  Yet, like Pandora’s box, once the lid was opened and people realized the vast possibililties the blogosphere presented, closing the blogs down, or filtering them, was not enough to slam the lid back down.  Those who would control now had to ‘neutralize’ those who had peeked in…

Thus, many opressors are going after bloggers themselves.

Here, in Canada, we face only minor punishments:  monetary penalty, perhaps a lifelong gag order (!)against ever ‘expressiong oneself’ on or about a particular topic…  This is enough of a threat to our inherrent right to freedom of speech from our own bureaucratic opressors, but it is nothing comparing to what our counterparts in other parts of the world are facing!

Here is the unpleasant bit of news from ‘Global Voices’, and another from ‘Daily Tech’ (this one includes the original cartoon), Khaleej Times Online, thought many other sources have picked up on it, too.

Earlier this year, Iranian bloggers had been asked to register each and every blog on a specific government site.  Fearing this will be a tool to prosecute/persecute them, many bloggers refused to comply.  Predictably, bullies feel threatened by anyone that stands up to them.  This show of backbone by the bloggers could not go uncrushed by that opressive regime…

Last Wednesday, Iranian parlilament has agreed to discuss adding ‘disturbing mental security in society’ to such crimes as rape, kidnapping and armed robbery:  all capital crimes. 

Apparently, blogging could ‘disturb‘ this ‘mental security in society’ if it were to ‘promote prostitution, corruption or apostasy‘.  In the sense used here, the term ‘apostasy’ applies to anything that is not in full agreement with the views and policies of the ruling Ayatollahs. 

According to the strict interpretaions of Islam in Iran (and other Muslim countries), apostasy is punishable by death, as per Koran, chapter 4 (Al-Nisa), verse 90 (partial quote):

“If they turn away [from Islam], then sieze them and kill them wherever you find them…”

That is not such only quote in the Koran, just the one which is best known.  From its past behaviour, it is also clear that the current regime in Iran is using the very strictest possible interpretation of the Islamic scriptures and imposing death sentences on people it deems to be ‘apostates’.  Of course, the Iranian regime is abusing the scriptures in order to silence its political opposition and to stifle legitimate political debate among its populace. 

This is how that twisted reasoning goes:  

  1. The government is headed by the highest religious authority, the Ayatollahs.  
  2. Questioning the government’s policy is therefore questioning the Ayatollahs.
  3. Questioning  the Ayatollahs, the highest authority on Islam, is questioning Islam itself,
  4. Questioning Islam, by the Ayatollahs’ definition, is apostasy. 

… and apostasy is a capital crime.

Q.E.D.

But Iran is not the first country to make such a move!

Last April, Yemen passed a similar law.  Under this law, bloggers whose blogs are deemed to be ‘inciting hatred’ (does the wording sound familiar) could face death penalties. Here are some quotes from ‘Mideast Youth‘:

 Walid Al-Saqaf, the administrator of YemenPortal.net which has been blocked in Yemen since January of this year, has just sent this very alarming news to his friends and colleagues:

“This week, the government’s Minister of Information threatened to file lawsuits against news websites on the justification of ‘inciting hatred’ or ‘harming national interests’ and the other usual excused they often use to prosecute journalists. The threat is even more severe for websites because the government would use the penal code instead of the press law. This means that website owners could get up to death penalties.”

Report in Arabic:

وحذر مصدر مسؤول في المركز من خطورة مثل التصريحات التي توحي بتوجه رسمي لزج الصحافيين والمخالفين بالرأي إلى السجون وتشديد الخناق عليهم بتطبيق قانون العقوبات الذي يحتوي على عقوبات قد تصل حد الإعدام

(Source)

Death penalty for blogging! 

I am speechles…

Posted in debate, freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , . 5 Comments »

The end of the Internet?

June 30, 2008 — xanthippa

The Internet is the one tool in the hands of us, the ordinary people which allows us access to a wide variety of information and opinions.  It empowers us, so we are able to form opinions which are truly our own.

After all, most of us are not able to explore every aspect of science and society (and all that) all on our own!  If I spend my time in the lab, chances are I will not be able to travel to far off places to see what is happening there.  And, if there is no news-source to tell me that, say, a brand new type of car fuelled by water has been invented in Brazil, it just might not occurr to me to be dissatisfied with my gas-guzzler here….

The internet corrects this.  It allows me to search all kinds of sites, read things written by people from all over the world, with all kinds of opinions.  Raw and unfiltered… so I must learn to differentiate between supportable fact and fanciful notions or downright manipulations, but – again – the internet enables me to do that.  I learn a lot by doing this.

Yet, perhaps, even before my younger son gets to high-school, this may no longer be the case…. 

Thanks to Blazing Catfur, here is a truly scary piece of information:

AmericanFreePress.net published an article titled ‘Canada’s ISPs plan net censorship’.  Here are some excerpts:

“The plans made by the large telecom businesses would change the Internet into a cable-like system, where customers sign up for specific web sites, and must pay to see each individual site beyond a certain point. Subscription browsing would be limited, extra fees would be applied to access out-of-network sites. Many sites would be blocked altogether. “

…

“The plans would in effect be economic censorship, with only the top 100 to 200 sites making the cut in the initial subscription package. Such plans would likely favor major news outlets and suppress smaller news outlets, as the major news outlets would be free (with subscription), and alternative news outlets, like AFP, would incur a fee for every visit.”

…

“Marketing and big budget ‘content-pushing’ just doesn’t seem to work on the Internet, and this is something that several industries want fixed. ISPs know this and will benefit greatly by fixing this for the marketing and entertainment industry,”

In other words, the internet will no longer be what it is now.  No more ‘surfing’.  Instead, the internet might – in effect – become no more than an extention of the current cable-subscription service/directed advertizing. 

The ISPs will be paid by the ‘richest’ sites (which will increasingly include specific TV shows and other ‘big-budget’ mass-media entertainment) to include their websites on the ‘package’ of 50/100/200 websites, much as entertainment channels are now sold in ‘bundles’.  If one wishes to go to other sites, they will either be ‘billed per visit’, or (depending on the ‘package’ one can afford to purchase from the ISP, all other sites will be blocked.

Yes, blocked.

But, even if you could access them ‘per visit’ – how many sites do you check on a daily basis?  For fun, news, entertainment?  5?  10?  50?

How many would you visit if it cost you $1.00 each time you went on?

And, if people can no longer afford to frequent all but the richest, most ‘influential’ (with ISPs, of course) websites, how long before most of the rest become obsolete…extinct???

And who will then control the majority of the content seen on the internet?  It will be the entertainment industry!  The very same people who have already bougth full or partian control of so much of our news industry.   

 Well, at least there will be consistency…

Our movies and TV shows will show the proper ‘moral’ lesson to go along with the ‘news’ and the ‘internet chatter’ of the day.  The ‘social engineers’ at the helm of these multinational corporations (which is what the big entertainment companies are now) will have unprecendented power over the opinions we, the ‘unwashed masses’, are able to form.

Is this an isolated move?

I wish it were….  But with the ‘stuff’ that has been happening all around the world, aimed at intimidating, limiting and regulating the expressions of free speech on the internet, this appears to be only one little step in the march towards internet collectivism….

 

(Thank you, ‘Dust My Broom’, for this most excellent post.)

Posted in debate, freedoms, human nature, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . 5 Comments »

The radicalized ‘Church of Global Warming’

June 23, 2008 — xanthippa

If anyone were not yet convinced that the ‘Global Warming Alarmism’ is anything but a new religion, its missionaries have stepped up to remove any lingering doubts doubts.

Few months ago, Canada’s high priest of the ‘Church of Global Warming’ himself, Dr. David Suzuki, had delivered a series of speeches in which he openly called for the jailing of those who disagree with his views on Global Warming.  Dr. Suzuki is a geneticist, and apparently, these credentials qualify him as the leading authority on Climate Change.

Applying this logic, an ornithologist would be qualified to assess building codes for earthquake-prone areas and a meteorologist is qualified to work as an obstetrician.  After all, they are all ‘scientists’!!! 

Just imagine…

delivery

 

But, I digress…

Is it surprising, then, that one of the founders of the ‘Church of Global Warming’, James Hansen, is doing much the same?  Lubos Motl, from The Reference Frame, has analyzed this and makes some very insightful points:

“…when it is already clear that his predictions have been bunk since the very beginning, James Hansen wants trials against oil firm chiefs who help to allow the people to understand that the predictions have been incorrect.”

 …

“…when you start to see fringe pseudoscientists who not only want to use their subjective, sensationalist, and mad visions and personal interests to unseat all inconvenient CEOs and Congressmen – another explicitly formulated desire of Mr Hansen – but you also see that they seem to have a clique of misinformed or equally evil collaborators who have been partially successful, I am telling you: This is a damn serious situation that should be solved unless you want to repeat some truly black pages from the history.”

It is not the beliefs or opinions themselves which identify someone as a ‘radical religionist’, it is the fanticism of their belief that it is their duty to remove all obstacles to re-shaping society according to their own visions. 

Wikipedia (a great place to start info searches) says, under ‘political radicalism’, that:

‘The 19th century American Cyclopaedia of Political Science asserts that “radicalism is characterized less by its principles than by the manner of their application”.’

And that certainly includes the politico-religious extremists spreading the AGW creed.

Posted in debate, freedoms, human nature, opression, politics, religion, science, society. Tags: , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Tarek Fatah’s most brilliant comment!!!

June 10, 2008 — xanthippa

It seems that people all over the world are observing Canada’s shame… 

This week, the British Columbia’s Human Rights Tribunal (thier Provincial flavour of the Canadian Human Rights’ Commission) held hearings of the complaint against the respected Canadian mainstream news magazine, Macleans, and one of its writers, Mark Steyn.  So, what was their crime?

An article Mr. Steyn wrote (actually, an excerpt from his book, America Alone), and Macleans magazine published, was deemed to be potentially harmful, because it quoted a Norwegian Imam who proudly boasted that ‘[Muslims] multiply like mosquitos’.  This, of course, could possibly cast Muslims in a negative light….so, REGARDLESS OF ITS VERACITY, it ‘ought’ never have been published!

According to whom?  Several extremist Islamists….and, by coincidence, 3 of them are just-graduating law students trying to make a name for themselves in the legal profession….  By the way, none of the complainants, or defendants, lives/has head office in BC – which makes this choice of jurisdiction somewhat curious, to say the least.

There are many wonderful bloggers, some of whom have been ‘live blogging’ from the hearings.  You can find some of them here.

One place through which I was attempting to follow the events of Friday, 6th of June, 2008 was the day of ‘final arguments’  (now that I think of it, it is a little funny that it fell onto D-day!) was Macleans’ own blog.  There, I came across a MOST BRILLIANT comment posted by the past president of the Muslim Canadian Congress, Mr. Tarek Fatah.

This man knows his stuff!

Just linking to the page itself, the comment might get lost among the veritable sea of outrage, common sense, and – well – human nature.  Therefore, with Mr. Fatah’s permission, I am posting the whole of his comment.  It speaks for itself!

comment by Tarek Fatah on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 1:29 pm:

Dear ‘Just Living,’

Try living a full and free life instead of hiding behind a cyber-burka and a name that tells all, viz., Just Living.

To label all people on this forum as ‘bigots,’ is not surprising as it is the only tool employed by Islamists hell-bent on upholding the jihadi doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood in Canada.

I know it is difficult, but is it possible that the only people contributing to Islamophobia in Canada are the mulla-elmasry duo?

What did these twits achieve other than to embarrass all Muslim Canadians, who appear to held hostage by the blackmail of community patriotism?

Last night one of these imams came on the Michael Coren Show to discuss polygamy and made such an ass of himself, waving the Quran at the host, mocking Christianity on a Christian TV station and then claiming there was Islamophobia in this country! When I defended my faith by explaining that polygamy was a medieval Bedouin tradition meant to take care of war widows, the Imam started reading from the Quran, screaming, “My religion allows me to marry four wives…Tarek Fatah knows nothing about Islam,” then he sneered at me with ugly facial gestures, waving hands and feminine accent, “Tarek Fatah is modern … moddderrrnnn Muslim…He is not a Muslim,” as if modernity itself was his enemy!

Dear ‘Just Living’, start living and while you are at it, if you are looking for bigots, chances are you will find them in Elmasry’s mosque or Dr. Habib’s clinic, definitely not on this Macleans forum. Sarcasm? May be. Anger? Yes and justifiably so. Islamophiobia? Not a shred of it in five days of discussion.

Dear ‘Just Living,’ the notion that the US or Canada are anti-Muslim does not withstand scrutiny. The number one selling author in both countries for over two years is a Muslim: Dr. Khalid Hossieni whose novel ‘Kite Runner’ has made so many Canucks shed tears on Go Trains and in their solitudes as they embraced the young poor boys of Kabul as their very own family. There is more.

The most sold poet in all of North America is the medieval Muslim poet Rumi. Why would Americans choose to read Maulana Rumi if they hate Muslims?

The most popular sportsman in US for decades is Muhammad Ali Clay. This mischievous boxer who titillated and entertained all of us with his sly smile and political wit. And who still stings like butterfly and floats like a bee! If Americans and the US hate Muslims, why do they love Muhammad Ali, Rumi and read the Kite Runner?

Why does CNN give Ali Velshi so much airtime prominence if it is anti-Muslim? Why, if the West hates Islam, is Farid Zakaria the editor of Newsweek magazine and why is permitted to host his own show on PBS and CNN?

Right in the heart of Vancouver where the boy-band is spewing hate against Canada and its free press, lives Senator Mobina Jaffer. Does her appointment to the senate reflect an anti-Muslim bias in the West or Canada? How doe we end up electing a young Muslim lawyer from Ottawa Centre if Canaucks are anti-Islam? And if your anger is directed at the Conservative flank of Canadian political spectrum, why them would the Reform Party, then the Alliance and later the Conservatives elect Rahim Jaffer as an MP since 1993. Or do you discount him to be a good Muslim simply because he is smart, good looking, dates a lovely MP and wears stylish suits, and heavens forbid, has sense of humour that borders impish naughtiness, a trait that would help such cry babies as Khurrum Awan and Faisal ‘Joseph’ to grow up and stop sucking on their thumbs as they utter drivel.

Dear ‘Just Living,’ please start living.

Mr. Fatah could not be more correct!

Posted in debate, freedoms, human nature, language, opression, perceptions, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , . 4 Comments »
« Older posts
Newer posts »