Copenhagen Treaty vs. Liberty

December 11, 2009 — xanthippa

Whatever we may or may not think (or believe or disbelieve) about the role humans may or may not have played in the warming the Earth has experienced, or the rise in carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, we should all learn all we can about the Copenhagen Treaty.

Why?

Because if it is signed, what it says will become the ‘top law’ in the countries that sign it.  (Even if it is not signed – that it got ‘this close’ means that its content is significant – and likely to come up again in another form.)

In a democratic country, passing a new law is a long and arduous process:  there are all kinds of checks and balances in place in order to make sure that the lawmakers (and the people they represent – and who can vote them out if they misbehave) know what the law says and how it will impact society.

Typically, ‘a bill’ (a proposed law) has to pass a number of public readings (transparency – so ‘everyone’, in theory, is aware of what it says), where the different elected representatives are supposed to examine all its aspects in a thorough and objective (ideally) way, point out any of its potential pitfalls or shortcomings, take account of the public debate about it, suggest amendments and all that.  Only after this long process (which OUGHT NOT be shortened, for any reason, not even if Obama says so), if most of the elected representatives think that supporting it is more likely to get them re-elected than not (i.e. the will of ‘the people’) does this ‘bill’ become a ‘law’.

This is really, really important.

Yes, it is annoying and tedious, but important because it is the only mechanism through which the citizens of a democratic can assert their will on what laws govern their land.  (Legally, that is…)

Contrast that with the ‘Copenhagen Treaty’.

It is a whole set of laws, rules and regulations which we are told are necessary to ‘slow down the build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere’.

Because the atmosphere is shared by all the people on Earth, any rules or regulations to effectively deal with problems with it must be global.  Makes sense, when put that way…

So, the rules and regulations in the Copenhagen Treaty over-rule any laws or constitutions of the countries that sign it.  Because these are now ‘global rules’, and take precedence over ‘national laws’.

A country may not opt out (once in), unless the majority of the signatory countries agree to let them.

So, what exactly ARE these laws, rules and regulation?

Unlike the process for passing laws in democratic countries which I described above, a system where the content of a proposed law is open for examination and subject to public debate and scrutiny, we don’t really know the details of this whole set of powerful rules and regulations!

Yesterday, some leaked bits of it showed that it would permit ‘developed’ nations to emit something like twice the CO2 per person than ‘developing’ nations:  in other words, ‘developing’ nations would have their development arrested!

They would NOT be allowed to develop! To provide medicine to their people!  To build up their civilizations and raise their people’s standard of living!

NOT ALLOWED!

People in the ‘developed nations’ would have to pay huge amounts of money in taxes.  These taxes would then be used to keep ‘developing nations’ in a state of perpetual poverty and dependence on the ‘developed nations’!

In other words, the Copenhagen Treaty would force them to be the new slave-class.

So poor, they will be grateful for the little bit of medicine, they’ll readily agree to be part of a new vaccination or new medication study.

So hungry, they will accept any crop-seed – happy to get it and let the agro-businesses collect decades of data on its safety.

And – as horrible as this proposition is – it is just the tip of the proverbial ice-berg.

The even bigger issue is that the only way all the representatives found out about it was THROUGH A LEAK!!!

And, we do NOT KNOW what ELSE is there, that was not leaked…

In other words, the Copenhagen Treaty is a pig-in-a-poke – a pig-in-a-poke that will have the power to over-ride our Constitution and any rights and freedoms it guarantees us.

Regardless of your views on Global Warming:  is this a good idea?

Do the ends ever justify the means?

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Posted in debate, freedoms, opression, politics, science, scientific fraud, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

A letter to Mr. Prentice, Minister of the Environment

December 4, 2009 — xanthippa

Dear Mr. Prentice,

Recently, you have said that, despite the leaked documents from CRU (and, the latest evidence suggests they were not hacked, but leaked by a conscientious whistle-blower), your position remains:

“The science overall is relatively clear on all of this and as a conservationist and as a responsible environmental steward Canada wants to see carbon emissions reduced.”

With the Copenhagen conference coming up, Mr. Minister, I would like to most emphatically point out that the science has never been ‘relatively clear’, at least not clear in support of the claim that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is the driving force behind climate change.

There has clearly been a very lively scientific debate since these ACC claims have first been made.

On the one hand, there is the series of IPCC reports, the latest of which claims the support of 2,500 scientists and policymakers.  If this is a matter of numbers – which is something measurable – then let’s contrast this 2,500 scientists and policymakers versus the 31,486 scientists (including 9,029 with PhDs) who have signed a petition disagreeing with this claim, because in their expert opinions, the scientific evidence does not support the ACC claim.

Just because very many of scientists think something is right, it does not makes it so:  I am simply bringing this to your attention as proof that there has never been a consensus among scientists on the topic of anthropogenic climate change.  With 2,500 saying ‘yes’ and 31,486 saying ‘no’, it is clear that the ‘science’ has not been proven and that the debate has never been ‘settled’.

Please note – this petition predates any of the current scandals (the Dr. Jones CRU team, the Dr. Mann data, the Dr. Wang data, or even the Danish cap-and-trade scandal)

Something else that many people have been very uncomfortable with – for a very long time – is the militant way in which those supporting ACC claims have behaved:  some people have labeled them ‘warm-mongers’, because of their bellicosity!  Dr. Suzuki, for example, a once-respected scientist, has even called for jailing people who have different opinions from his!

That is not how scientists behave.  It is not just ‘the heat of the issue’ or its importance:  this is contrary to the very rules of scientific behaviour.  Perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century, Dr. Richard Feynman, explained this very clearly:

If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.

As you see, Mr. Minister Prentice, we do not have all the facts, the science is not clear – relatively or otherwise.  No conservationist and no responsible environmental steward would make decisions or commitments based on unsettled science and uncertain data!

Please, keep that in mind during the Copenhagen conference:  my children’s future depends on it!

Sincerely yours,

Xanthippa

[well, actually, I used my real-life name….and provided contact info, just in case…]

Posted in debate, politics, science, scientific fraud, society. Tags: , , , , . 2 Comments »

The ‘Tree Ring Circus’: what does ‘divergence of the proxy’ mean?

November 26, 2009 — xanthippa

With the ‘leaked emails’ confirmed as authentic, many experts are sifting through the materials and analyzing them.

One thing which has been highlighted was the discussion about tree ring studies, from which the (now infamous – you can get T-shirts with it) ‘hide the decline’ phrase comes from. Here, I would like to explain what the ‘tree ring’ and ‘multi-proxy reconstruction’ thing is all about, and why it really, really matters.

When constructing the graphs of global temperatures, the scientists ran into a tiny little problem:  how do we know what the Earth’s temperature was like, say, 1 500 years ago? There were no ‘standardized measurements’…. So, how do we ‘know’?

Aside:  my explanation is going to be a simplification for the sake or clarity, which runs the danger of being an over-simplification.  Please, consider it to be a starting point for your own inquiry, not anything more.

The idea is that there are other ‘indicators’ of the Earth’s temperature than just ‘direct measurements’, like we can make today.

For example, ‘tree ring data’.  Each year’s growth can be measured on each tree, because tree-trunks grow radially outwards:  the latest year adds the newest (out-most) ring to the tree.  By looking at the rings, scientists can see which ones are thicker (meaning that the tree added ‘more growth’ that year) and which ones are thinner (meaning the tree grew less that year).

The reasoning goes something like this:

  1. The years when the weather is nice and warm, plants do well and grow more.
  2. Trees are plants, therefore trees do well grow more:  the warmer a year it was, the bigger the tree’s growth ring for that year will be!
  3. Therefore, looking back and comparing the size of tree rings will tell us when it was warmer and colder.

Sounds good, right?

So, that is what they did.

(By ‘they’, I mean the scientists who promote the ‘Anthropogenic Climate Change’ agenda and on whose scientific work the current political policies are based.  I shall refer to them as ‘the IPCC cabal’.)

They took core samples of very, very old trees and looked at their rings, counted the years and centuries, compared them, analyzed them, assigned temperature values to various ring thicknesses – and they came up with a nifty little graph. Because it does not measure the temperature directly, but uses a ‘proxy’ (a substitute) – the growth of trees – this nifty little curve was included on the graph they submitted to the IPCC report as one of the ‘proxies’ for actual temperature records from long ago.

Except that….

During the time period when we have had the most reliable, actual temperature readings, say, from 1960 to now, the tree ring growth did not correspond to the temperatures the scientists measured!

To the contrary:  while these scientists measured an in increase in temperatures, the tree ring ‘record’ from 1960 to now shows a DECLINE in temperatures!

The scientists did notice this divergence:  one set of readings went up, the other down. That can clearly be seen from the email exchanges between them – and from the graphs they exchanged, which I linked to above. Now, at this point, a real scientist would look at their data and say:  “We have actual, measured temperatures going up, while the temperatures reconstructed from tree-ring temperatures are going down!  Obviously, there are other factors at play here:  either some of our measurements are wrong, or the method how we are using to figure out temperatures from tree rings is wrong.  Therefore, either have to figure out what we are missing or figure out where we have made a mistake:  either way, this data cannot be used as is!”

Alas, that is not what happened.

Instead, they decided that since the first ‘divergent’ year that the ‘common data’ was available for both the actual measured temperatures and the tree-ring proxy temperatures was 1960nto now, they would simply stop showing the tree-ring data from 1960 on!!!

Then, nobody could tell that the tree-ring data showed something different than what they were claiming! This is hard to believe.  Please, consider the picture below:

get_th31.jpg get_th32.jpg

The bigger graph was what these people submitted to the IPCC thing.

The picture on the right (or below – depending on your browser and settings) is a close-up of the last few decades of the graph.  It shows the actual temperatures measured in modern times (black), and the ‘proxy’ temperatures as they were gleaned by the ‘scientists’ for the past dozen or so centuries.

The ‘tree-ring data’  – the temperatures they figured out the Earth ‘had to have been’ based on the thickness of the tree-rings from those years – is the pale blue line.

When one looks at the enlarged view of the graph, it becomes obvious that that line stops a few decades before the other ones do:  1960, to be exact…. And, the email exchanges show that the only reason that this data was excluded – why the line was not continued – was not because they did not have the data….it was because they did not like what the data showed!!!

And THAT is FRAUD!

By excluding the data, by stopping the blue line on that graph in 1960, even though the data since then exists, the IPCC Cabal of scientists PROVED they knew they were committing fraud!

And THAT is why so many respectable scientists are so very, very angry.

Disappointed, and angry.

Note:  the formatting of this post got ‘messed up’, so, I edited it to fix it.  Aside from formatting (and this note), the post has not been altered.

Posted in debate, opression, politics, science, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

ACC scientists’ fraud fallout: the lawsuits are starting!

November 24, 2009 — xanthippa

While much of the mainstream media (MSM) is still sounding apoplectic apologetic about the ‘Global Warming Guilt’ scientists being caught in large scale fraud and subversion of the peer-review process, the documents leaked last week from UK’s University of East Anglia’s (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) (I so do not want to use the term ‘ClimateGate’!), others are not so idle.

‘Watts Up With That?’, a well-regarded blog run by the outspoken and highly respected Anthony Watts, posted a story by Chris Horner of The American Spectator, entitled: ‘CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA GISS’.

Why, and how is it important?

CEI is the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think-tank, which has focused on verifying whether or not ‘the government’ is releasing accurate statements, especially when it comes to issues with impact as pervasive as ‘Global Warming’ or ‘AGW’ or ‘ACC’ (whatever you want to call it).

NASA is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (yes, the astronaut people) and GISS is NASA’s Goddart Institute for Space Studies.  And, in their own words, “Research at GISS emphasizes a broad study of global climate change.”

Dr. Hansen heads up GISS, and is perhaps one of the best known voices on this side of the Atlantic pond (aside from politicians and celebs) calling for drastic action to save us all from the inevitable catastrophe caused by man-made ‘climate change’.

The article starts out:

Today, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies’ refusal – for nearly three years – to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding “ClimateGate” scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries’ freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies. Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leaked emails, computer codes and other data from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK’s East Anglia University.

So – this is why it matters:

‘Good scientists’ – even the CRU scientists know this, as per the leaked documents – always hand over the ‘raw data’ (that means, exactly as it was collected (along with the methodology used, conditions under which it was collected), before it was processed or ‘normalized’ (scientific meaning of the word) in any way-shape-or-form), what they did with it and why, and their results along with their hypothesis and conclusions when they submit their work for peer-review.

This is really, really important:  errors or mistakes (not to mention fraud) can occur at any point of the work.  It can occur at the very point of data-collection.  For example, if a thermocouple ‘x’ were used to measure temperatures at 5 out of 15 points, and thermocouple ‘y’ was collected for the rest, it will be necessary for any reviewer to read up on both thermocouples to make sure they behave exactly the same way under all conditions.

Simplification:  consider 2 thermometers commonly used to measure fever.  One is an old fashioned mercury one, the other is the modern, stick-in-the-ear one.  If one takes a child’s temperature using the ear thermometer, they may get a different temperature than if they use the old-fashioned mercury one under the child’s arm.  Therefore, one would have to document taking the child’s temperature simultaneously with both temperatures and record the readings.  Then, one would ‘analyze the difference’ between the readings to see what the difference in readings is.  Then, if one recorded 5 temperatures with the ear thermometer, and 15 with the mercury one, then one would have to ‘normalize’ one set of the readings (by adding or subtracting the ‘normal difference’ between their readings) before one could lump all 20 together as one dataset.

When doing peer-review of another scientist’s work, making sure there were no errors or mistakes in how the data was collected (like lumping together readings from the two thermometers in the example above), that there were no mistakes in making any ‘normalization’, and so on. And, since errors or mistakes can occur at any point from here on, all the ‘work’ has to be subjected to scrutiny by one’s peers.

‘Good scientists’ consider this to be a necessary part of any peer-review process.

Yet, the ‘leaked documents’ demonstrate that many of their studies, on which so much policy is being based, have been submitted for ‘peer-review’ without supplying any of their actual data to the peer doing the reviewing!

They even threatened to stop publishing in journals which demanded to see all of their data and work!

That means that their work was not FULLY ‘peer-reviewed’!

That means we ought not put much weight in that body of work!

But, even worse:  the leaked emails show that, in multiple instances, some of these ‘alarmist scientists’ stated they would rather delete their data than release it for scientific review!!!

That is NOT what ‘good scientists’ do!

Which  brings us to the point of the Notice of Intent to File Suit:

CEI, using ‘Freedom of Information Act’ FoIA, requested GISS to release much of the data it used to make its predictions of doom and cataclysms.  It appears that, for years, GISS has not released it.

In addition, CEI appears to have requested access to the records of ‘discussions’ between various GISS employees about how the data was collected, processed and analyzed.  It would seem that they requested sort of similar-type material like was leaked, except from GISS instead of CRU.  And, it appears that GISS has not released it, either.

And, though I am no lawyer and people ought to draw their own conclusions, but it does seem to me that CEI is citing the information from the ‘leaked files’ that this ‘cabal of scientists’ was willing to deleted information requested under FoIA (which might constitute a pattern of behaviour among this group of scientists) to put NASA’s GISS on notice that if they do not release the requested information (as the law demands they do), they will indeed face a lawsuit.

As they say, we do live in interesting times…

Posted in debate, politics, science, society. Tags: , , , , . 2 Comments »

IPCC scientists, hacked emails and largescale fraud

November 23, 2009 — xanthippa

By now, most people are aware that the University East Anglia’s (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has had their database hacked and tons of documents –  including emails between scientists (if one can use that term, in light of the ‘now confirmed’ information revealed therein) which contain some extremely incriminating evidence of scientific fraud, collusion to defraud the public and systematic efforts to subvert the scientific ‘peer review’ process and turn it from an objective assessment into partisan shill.

To me, the last one is the most serious.  But, first I have to ask:  how come this has not been the leading story in every newspaper and newsprogram everywhere?

Most people have only had a chance to come across a few apologetic articles, like this one in the New York Times, which present tiny snippets of the information unearthed (I condemn the means – let’s get that straight from the beginning – but now that the info is out there, we must assess it), without reasonable context, in order to explain it away as ‘harmless’ and thus diffuse any resulting criticism.  SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!

I first came across this at The Reference Frame, and I recommend it for the following reasons:  Mr. ReferenceFrame himself taught Physics at MIT.  Dr. Lubos Motl is a respected Physicist in his own right, with ties and connections with scientists all over the globe.  These, he put to good use himself, verifying whether or not the data the hackers leaked is genuine or not and whether what it reveals can be trusted.  As a Physicist, he is much more thorough in this than I would trust most journalists to be, he has the knowledge to evaluate ‘things’, and, let’s face it, as ‘one of them’, most scientists will be more comfortable and open discussing things with him.  (The corollary, of course, is that many ‘bad’ scientists will feel more threatened by him because he’s trained to detect any scientific BS!)

Plus, he is updating his post to include the latest bits…

AND, he has posted a comprehensive list of sites which are analyzing/discussing this. Again, I much recommend it… overall, I find his post to be a most useful frame of reference!

In case the absence of the mass media coverage on this topic has left you wondering what it is I am jabbering on about, here is the tip of the proverbial (and growing, not melting) iceberg:

If you would like to check through all the ‘leaked documents’, you can download them from Junk Science, or Friends of Science.  Or, look through the database Lubo Motl provides  on The Reference Frame:  it is excellent.  There are many well written blogs (as opposed to news stories(!)) that give the ‘scoop’ on this!

What the emails appear to have revealed:

  • data had been altered to ‘hide cooling’
  • data had been forged to demonstrate a ‘warming trend’
  • Scientists lamented that their data did not demonstrate the conclusions they wanted:  this is nothing new.  What is new is that they sought advice from each other how to fiddle the data in order to hide what it shows and instead conform to their desired conclusion
  • Scientists threatened to destroy data rather than permit other scientists examine the un-altered dataset on which their study is based (this is an essential part of the peer review process – without examining the raw data, another scientist cannot possibly assess if it had been processed ‘correctly’:  it is unthinkable that a proper peer review could possibly be done without examining the raw data
  • Scientists knowingly passed only  the data that supported ‘Global Warming’ on to the IPCC panel for evaluation, suppressing existing data that opposed it.
  • Scientists intentionally manipulated ‘impartial’ scientists performing peer review on studies which had findings which did not support AGW/ACC point of view, tricking them into rejecting non-AGW/ACC supporting studies…

All this is bad.  Very bad.  BUT – and this is, in my never-humble-opinion, is something so vile and unforgivable, I am having trouble wrapping my brain around it:  THEY COLLUDED TO SUBVERT THE SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW PROCESS!!!

Why is subverting the peer review process the thing that upsets me so much?

Because if people do ‘bad science’ – the peers reviewing it will, eventually, catch it and expose it.

Because if people are committing scientific fraud – the peers reviewing it will, eventually, catch it and expose it, and ruin the reputation of the scientist committing it.

Because if there is a group of scientists conspiring to defraud everyone – the peers reviewing it may take a while to catch on, but, eventually, they will catch it, expose it and make sure these conspirators never get near any science again!

The scientific peer review process relies on the honesty and integrity of scientists.  It is nothing more – and nothing less – than, when one writes up one’s experiment/scientific study, one submits BOTH the write-up AND all the supporting data and materials to other scientists who have expertise in this field.  These other scientists read the experiment’s/study’s hypothesis, then they examine the methodology used, data (the actual, physical data that was collected,  the method/means it was collected by, the ‘controls’ that were placed to limit other possible factors that might affect the data and so on, the methodologies and techniques used to analyze the data, and so on) and then they analyze whether or not the data, collected in the way it was, analyzed as it was, supports the hypothesis as proposed.

It is not an easy process – and it relies heavily on the integrity of the ‘peers’ doing the ‘review’!

That is why it is so highly valued!

There is no fame or fortune in it, yet it is hard (and necessary) work!  That is why most scientists take ‘peer review’ at face value!

By showing that this very process which is supposed to test (and thus assure) the integrity of scientific findings can be subverted, and subverted so easily, these people have ended the ‘age of innocence’ among the scientific community!

To sum it up – they have falsified science (and manipulated policymakers) in order to increase their own funding, they have subverted (and thus for ever destroyed the credibility of) the scientific peer review process and utterly destroyed the credibility of science and scientists!

I wish I could think of names vile enough to call them – but, there are none!  Their names will go down in history and become the worst possible insults a person can be called!

 

Posted in debate, politics, science, society. Tags: , , , , . 8 Comments »

A new voice for Freedom of Speech

October 25, 2009 — xanthippa

Before I started my blog, I joined a debating site (ConvinceMe) to improve my skills in presenting my point of view.

OK – so I never learned how not to be long-winded…but, I did meet some interesting people there, of all backgrounds, viewpoints and ages. One of them was a kind teen who went by the name of LoneWolf.  As the years went by, I have watched LoneWolf grow from a promising, idealistic teenager into a fine, responsible man.

People like LoneWolf give me hope for our future! Recently, LoneWolf has been in touch with me through another channel.  With his permission, here is a message he sent me (I inserted the links for clarity):

About the free speech arguements, great!! I have been leading a small, yet pretty effective underground within my community. Basically, anybody who feels the way America is forming is BAD for America has joined. Once I get proper funding, I’m hoping to make it into an interest group which can effectively lobby at congress and get RID of the corruption which plagues my fine country.

One of the things thats been on my mind as of late is the controversy of Obama bringing the fairness doctrine back into effect.( I don’t know if ever was in effect?) Anyway, me and a few friends got together in front of our city hall building and gave a few speeches, about the freedom of speecha nd what our founding father’s reallt intended for this country.

It amazes me that people feel that the best way to be safe is give more power to the government. Agh! I’m called a Christian Neo-Conservative because of both my religious beliefs and my political beliefs, but I’m really not. I’m actually a 18 year old male who really wants life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Call me a freedom fighter but without the violence some bring with the title. America’s first amendment does give us the right to assemble but peacefully.

Which reminds me! Did you hear about the college in Pittsburg that had a protest in which they vandalized shops to get the point across that our government was being unfair and should put caps on how much a person can make?! I was amazed at this. Sadly, I feel America is falling more and more down socialist avenue, and our new Captain, Barrack Obama, is the most ideal candidate to bring that sort of change to the fray.

When it comes to my studies, I’m at a crossroads with what to do. My biggets calling is the seminary. I love to preach and try to make the Word clear and understandable. However, I love law. I love understanding and practicing law. I would love to be a lawyer or even a judge. Then the final branch of the crossroads is I love politics. I really believe the current state of our government is full of old familiar corrupt faces that really need to get out of office. (I do in fact believe in term limits of senators and representatives). However I believe its time to put Sara Palin’s words last election campaign into action when it’s time to clear out the government corruption that has been stagnating within the government.

Anyway, I rant too much when I’m in the mood of a political discusion, but I really must be doing work so I’ll talk to you later.

Take care Xanni!

Lonewolf, or Will…(this really isn’t convinceme lol)

OK – I cannot help myself but to feel proud…even though I know the accomplishment is not mine, but LoneWolf’s.  Reflected glory, and all that…

Now that I found out that LoneWolf – I mean, Will – has started a blog of his own, I am glad to share it with you.  The opinions in it are honest, heart-felt, and well thought out – and not even a little bit cynical.

A breath of fresh air!

Without further ado, I give you ‘People For A Free America’!

Posted in about, debate, freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , . 1 Comment »

Letter to my Member of Parliament

October 6, 2009 — xanthippa

The following is a letter I have just emailed to my MP, and which I have copied to all the members of the Commons Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which is asking some questions about the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its activities:

Dear Mr. Poilievre!

When our paths intersected at a public event last summer, I mentioned that Mr. Ezra Levant was facing yet another nuisance lawsuit from a disgraced ex-CHRC employee – so I know that you are aware of and concerned about the current issues with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

To be honest, I was rather thrilled when the Human Rights Tribunal itself acknowledged that Section 13(1) of the Human Rights code (better known as ‘Thought Crime Section’) was unconstitutional: it gave me hope that the system can indeed be salvaged.

However, my hope was short lived.

It seems that even though it has acknowledged that Section 13(1) is unconstitutional, the CHRC is continuing to prosecute other cases under this section!

How could this be?

Is it even legal for them to do this?

How can a government agency prosecute people under a law which the Tribunal has ruled unconstitutional? Perhaps it is because I am not educated in the subject of law, but, just as an ordinary person, this does not seem legal to me. I would love it if you could make some public comment about this (of course, I understand that it cannot be immediate – you need to get the wording right and all that), perhaps an informal comment on a radio station (I have heard you speak on CFRA before), which would explain how this is possible. After all, if I am wondering this, there must be many other people who also do not understand how a government agency can prosecute citizens under a law which had been ruled to be unconstitutional.

I’m sorry if this comes across too stark or starchy or snarky – it is not meant to. I’m just trying to get to the heart of things quickly.

Also, there is currently a Commons Committee of Justice and Human Rights: Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn have already answered some questions for this committee, Ms. Jennifer Lynch and others will come to answer some questions, too. (I am cc-ing (is that the proper word?) the members of this committee on this email.) I am certain that there will be many questions the committee members will ask about the substance of Section 13(1) and related issues of freedom of speech, thought, conscience, and so on. That stands to reason.

And, I have great trust that they will be thorough!

However, I would also like them to ask about the expenses at the CHRC…

Not only has it been revealed that during these trying economic times, the CHRC employees have traveled first class on airplanes, stayed at extremely expensive hotels, and so on. They may be employed by an ‘arm’s length agency’ – and ought to stay politically neutral, of course, but they are still all civil servants and they must adhere to all the rules and regulations regarding expenses which all civil servants are bound by. The optics on this have failed.

I would like to know if it truly is just the optics of the situation (it does look pretty bad that Ms. Lynch can rack up expenses from just one trip which are greater than many Canadians’ annual salary), or if there is a deeper problem there. There has even been a report that Ms. Lynch has not supplied the receipts to support her enormous expense claims, because she thought it was unreasonable and would have interfered with the operation of the CHRC!

Is this true?

What is going on?

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

The negative impact of ‘spanking’

September 28, 2009 — xanthippa

Pun 100% intended!

OK – this is usually a very heated debate, which has bubbled up to the surface (yet again) because of the release of a new study which claims to prove that people whose mothers reported spanking them grow up to have a lower IQ.

Those who would discredit this study have been quick off the mark:  and, I really don’t know if the study is any good or not.  That is why I am not linking to it:  while I have a lot to say about the topic in general, I do not wish to get ‘boxed in’ and limited to this study.

BUT…

…here are a few thoughts for your consideration which listening to the discussions this topic has raised have popped into my mind.

1.  Whose intelligence is being measured, anyway?

The study said that mothers were to self-report the discipline methods they used on their kids over a certain period.  Then, years later, the now-grown-up-kids intelligence was measured – and those whose mothers had reported not spanking averaged higher on the IQ scale: is this an indirect IQ test of the mothers?

We know that people who are intelligent often have kids who are intelligent. Could it be that more intelligent mothers do not resort to spanking their kids?

2.  HOW could ‘spanking’ affect ‘intelligence’?

‘Intelligence’ is defined many ways by many people:  however, the definition I like most defines ‘intelligence’ as ‘an ability to learn’.  In my never-humble-opinion, this means that there are three major components to ‘intelligence’:

  1. The genetic potential:  as in, how good the ‘blueprint’ for one’s brain is
  2. Nutrition/health: the proper building blocks must be provided in the food to ‘build’ the brain to the best potential of the ‘genetic blueprint’ – illness can interfere with this process
  3. Desire to learn

It is the third one that I think can be affected by spanking.

After all, spanking – corporal punishment in general – tends to discourage ‘asking questions’.  And, ‘not asking questions’ – whether out of fear or habit – will necessarily limit one’s intelligence.

So, without passing judgment on this particular study:  I find it plausible that spanking a child can, indeed, lead to that person not growing into their full intelligence potential.  Not proven – just plausible.

Now, having set this ‘study’ aside, I would like to make a few comments on using corporal punishment to discipline children – in general.

This issue is very emotionally charged for people, for all the obvious reasons!  Therefore, any discussion of ‘spanking’ becomes extremely emotional, early on into the debate.  So, how do we approach the issue and discuss it, without sinking into the emotional quagmire?

Personally, I think it is best to ‘remove’ the situation from the ‘particular’ to the ‘general’:  do we, as a society, approve of corporal punishment?  Not just of ‘children’ – but of every citizen/resident.  Do we, as a society, approve of using caning or whipping or other forms of corporeal punishment?

For example, should an employer discipline an employee using corporal punishment?

Why?

Or, should nursing-home care-providers use corporal punishments to’ teach’ their elderly patients, who may have diminished mental capacities and might not understand long explanations, to comply with the nursing home’s rules?

Why?

Now, regardless of what your answers were, ask yourself if you think that a country’s laws ‘ought to’ protect every individual equally.

I think they must!  Our very civilization is founded on the principle that all people are equal in the eye of the law!

Or, at least,we ought to be…many of our lawmakers have been forgetting this bit lately, giving some groups privileges over others.  So far, these privileges do not include the right to inflict corporal punishment…. so why are these already existing laws not enforced when the victims are the most vulnerable members of our society:  children?!?!?

As my favourite philosopher wrote, a person’s a person, no matter how small!

P.S. Before anyone raises the ‘hot stove & other immediate dangers’ objection, arguing that it is important to make kids avoid ‘immediate danger’ so it is acceptable to hit them to make them comply with associated rules…  That is the worst possible argument EVER!!!  ESPECIALLY in situations of potential ‘immediate danger’, it is really, really important that children – from the moment they learn to crawl – are taught to UNDERSTAND what is dangerous, instead of being taught to OBEY rules!

How could replacing the understanding of danger (and, even infants can learn to understand danger!) with a mere arbitrary-sounding rule keep a child ‘safer’?  Rules will be broken… so making rules to cover dangerous situations is setting the child up for failure!  A dangerous failure, to boot!

Why not just take the easy way out and teach the child to understand the danger?  It’ll make them safer – and might just increase their intelligence in the process!

Posted in debate, human nature, philosophy, society. Tags: , , , , . 4 Comments »

Heroes are no longer welcome in our society

September 23, 2009 — xanthippa

Many people in the Ottawa area are discussing  how active a role citizens ought to take in the protection of our community and our fellow citizens.

Let me set the stage:

Two men were driving down a road, in a hurry (as they were late for a Kim Mitchell concert).  A woman jumped onto the road in front of them – they almost hit her.  Since she appeared not to be in perfect control of herself (the men thought she was drunk), they stopped in order to make sure she’d be OK.  She wasn’t…

This is where the situation takes a turn towards the surreal:  the young woman was hysterically screaming into her cell-phone, talking to 9-1-1,saying she had just been sexually assaulted.  Our two men immediately offered her assistance.

The woman was not perfectly coherent:  she had just been through something horrible, was bleeding… not exactly composed (screaming hysterically, as the 9-1-1 dispatcher put it).  Understandable…  But, she did convey to ‘or guys’ that her attacker was an acquaintance who was giving her a ride home, that he raped her and tried to choke her to death, and was sitting in that car over there!

The man she indicated started yelling rude insults at her and threatening to kill her and ‘put her in a cornfield’…. and appeared to take a drink from a bottle of Tequila.  Then he drove off.

Please, keep in mind that in Ontario, if you see someone drinking (alcohol) and driving, the law says you are to make a ‘citizen’s arrest’.  This is a bit of an ‘aside’, but it is important to the way the events unfolded.

‘Our guys’ took the injured woman into their car and, using her cell-phone to talk to the 9-1-1 dispatcher, they followed the man who had just they had just witnessed drinking and driving – and whom they heard threatening to kill the distressed woman.

This is where the controversy comes in:  many people have condemned the young men for chasing after the attacker!

The whole discussion is hardly helped by a very ‘misleading’ (according to the lawyer for one of the protectors) article about this event in the Ottawa Citizen:  today, I was listening to CFRA (an Ottawa radio station) when the lawyer for Ryan O’Connor called in and filled in some information.   (And, yes, it is ‘reporting’ like this that drives people away from the mainstream media…  It seems obvious that to them, this is no more than ‘just a story’… so the reporting is either unbelievably shoddy or intentionally misleading!)

OK – I heard the interview live, so I do not have a link to support my assertions (soon to follow).  Still, the lawyer (whose name escaped me) said his version of events would be brought out when the 9-1-1 transcripts will be released, so I am trusting that I heard things ‘right’.

The article asserts the woman knew her attacker and his name.  Well, he was an acquaintance – someone she had seen around.  And, he told her his first name.  I think that when a ‘familiar stranger’ – a person you know by sight, but little else – tells you his first name, it really ought not be reported as ‘the woman knew her attacker and his name’.  There is a serious difference between the two!

Also, there was the assertion (in the article as well as in much of the commentary that followed) that the man’s identity was clear because they noted his car’s license plate number.

Really?

Who said it was his car?  It could have been stolen.  It could have been borrowed.  It could have been just about anything! Claiming one could ‘prove’ the man’s identity by the license plate on his car is so idiotic, I don’t even know where to begin.  Jumping to conclusions without considering what evidence you actually have is bad – but when lives are at stake, it is inexcusable!

People have been condemning the two men who helped the victim, for a whole slew of reasons:

It turns out they were driving a Porsche – so they must obviously be bored rich kids looking for an excuse to live out a Hollywood – style high speed chase!

The fact that they were helping a woman in obvious distress, that they had abandoned their plans to go to a concert (the tickets to which they had already bought) and helped a woman who was hurt in body and spirit –  that little fact did not seem to matter to these petty complainers!  Nor did they seem to care that ‘our guys’ were well within the law to attempt to execute a citizen’s arrest on a drunk driver…

One of the two men turned out to be Matt Spezza – a brother of a very popular NHL hockey player on our local team, the Ottawa Senators.  The amount of venom this brought out in people – the ‘you know, he has a famous big brother so he thinks he’s God’ sentiment… that truly sickened me.  Why are people so warped and steeped in envy?  Does it not eat away at them?

The car chase reached ‘high speed’ at some points.  This means that they endangered themselves, the woman they were trying to help – and everyone else in the city!  They could have hit someone!  They just wanted to be heroes! (A woman said that last sentence at a call-in show.  She spat it out with such hate, as if wanting to be a hero was the most disgusting thing EVER!)

Yes, they could have hit someone.  But they didn’t.  The chase did reach ‘high speeds’ of 160 km/h (some reports go up as high as 170 km/h).   Not ‘Autobahn’ speed, mind you, but this is Canada!  We don’t think people ought to drive faster than a horse-buggy goes….you know, it could be dangerous!  The fact that the driver actually races cars – and would be quite capable of handling these speeds – seemed to only pour oil onto the fire of indignation against him!

Oh – and the driver continued to talk to the 9-1-1 operator while he chased the baddie:  talking on cell-phones while driving is bad!

Yeah!  He was talking to the 9-1-1 people!  As in, following their instructions…and, are our 9-1-1 operators not experts specially trained to assess the dangers of a wide range of situations?  And did not this expert assess the situation and decide that the danger of pursuit was ‘the lesser evil’ than unleashing a homicidal drunk on the public?  (By the way – this dispatcher has also been much maligned….before all the facts are known!)

They knew the attacker’s name and had his license number:  there was no need for a chase!  The cops could have just gone to his home and arrested him there!

Oh, like he was just going to orderly drive home?  Or, perhaps, he was going to drive to the nearest police station and respectfully request to be arrested? And then kiss some babies and donate to charity, too!

EVEN IF they knew exactly who he was (and, by now, the guys chasing the baddie and the 9-1-1 operator knew that the man did not own the car he was driving and that the victim knew nothing about him except his first name), LETTING HIM GO would have simply meant some other woman was going to be murdered that night.

This was a guy who was trying to live out a sadistic ‘rape-murder’ fantasy – and got interrupted half way through.  He was still high – on adrenalin, for sure, other stuff perhaps… and his reaction to having the victim snatched out of his grasp showed unabated rage!

Had the good guys not pursued him, he would – most likely – have snatched another person and carried out his murderous fantasy!

The cops certainly did not join in the chase – it was not until 15 minutes after the chase started that the cops got involved, stopping the suspect at a roadblock.  As in, no police helicopter.  No police cars or motorcycles joined the chase.

The baddie would have had 15 minutes (at least) to disappear!  During those 15 minutes, the suspect could have reached a spot where he could have abducted another victim, and then hidden away in some secluded area (the road on which the fist victim was assaulted borders the Green Belt:  an area filled with ‘nature paths’ and quiet, dark, secluded parking lots).

Yet, those who think it is unacceptable for citizens to take any action to protect themselves, that it is solely the job of the police (must be a union thing) – these people have won.  Today, the police chief announced that in the future, no citizen is allowed to lift a finger to help.  Anyone.  Ever!

Nobody expects the police to be able to be everywhere, right away.  It is not physically possible.  So, next time you see a crime in progress – just keep on walking!  It’s none of your business.

Found a loophole in the laws, which might let you help save a life?  Don’t worry, we’ll soon have those loopholes plugged!

Posted in debate, human nature, politics, society. 4 Comments »

John Robson: ‘They mean what they say’

September 18, 2009 — xanthippa

An excellent post by Mr. Robson:  “They mean what they say”.

It is not just disrespectful to dismiss what people say they believe and what they will do – it is dangerous.  And arrogant.

John Robson is, yet again, right.

Posted in debate, freedoms, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , . Leave a Comment »
« Older posts
Newer posts »