And, it was fun!
Met lots of interesting people, heard a lot of interesting things.
Miss Marprelate live-blogged the events.
It turns out that the more ‘liberty-loving’ people are, the less they want to partake of ‘groupthink’….so, trying to ORGANIZE a bunch of ‘liberty-lovers’ into a coherent whole is a less easy job than herding cats….
Perhaps everyone has heard about the ‘ClimateGate’ (I so hate that term) scandal. It has brought home ‘loud and clear’ just how science suffers when ‘scientific neutrality’ is lost.
The newest chapter in this scandal is happening down under: Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organization (CSIRO) scientist, Dr. Clive Spash, has resigned over his boss’s attempts to censor his work!
But – there is a twist to this tale…. a twist which just might shed new light on this whole Climate scandal mess!
Dr. Spash resigned because he claims his boss wanted him to change his findings, which compromises ‘scientific neutrality’.
On the other hand…
Dr. Spash’s boss claims she wanted him to change his findings, in order to preserve ‘scientific neutrality’.
WHAT!?!?!
One wants to publish as is, while the other wants to change it, but both claim the same motive?
How can this be?
Well, that depends entirely on whether one is a scientist first and a bureaucrat later, or vice versa!
Dr. Spash’s study was about the effectiveness of ‘cap-and-trade’ legislation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions: the very same thing Obama is proposing, the very same thing the Denmark financial fraud is about – and the very same thing that the Copenhagen Treaty (before it was partially derailed) was going to institute a ‘World Government’, taxing every financial transaction in ‘The West’ a 2% (or so) sales tax to fund ‘enforcement’…. This cap-and-trade scheme was (at the time the study was done, this policy was not yet defeated) the policy of the Australian government….
In other words, the paper was about a politically charged subject – and very, very current.
The original conclusions of the study? I paraphrase:
‘Cap-and-trade’ is not only ineffective in reducing carbon emissions, the scheme can easily be used for financial fraud. (Aside: remember, he did the study before the Danish scandal, where the ‘cap-and-trade’ scheme is central in a huge financial fraud – 8 arrests already, more are likely to come.)
Dr Megan Clark, Chief Executive and CSIRO Board member (and Dr. Spash’s boss), wanted ‘minor’ changes to be made to the conclusions of the study, prior to publication. Why? In her words:
“‘CSIRO staff are actively encouraged to debate publicly the latest science and its implications and to analyse policy options. However under our charter we do not advocate for or against specific government or opposition policies.”
In other words, Dr. Clark’s understanding of ‘scientific neutrality’ is that any scientific findings which her government agency publishes, must be ‘politically neutral’. Here is another quote of hers, which I think illustrates what I am getting at:
“However, under our charter, we do not advocate for or against specific government or opposition policies,” she said in a statement. “The CSIRO Charter protects the independence of our science. It also protects CSIRO scientists from being exploited in the political process.”
“My role as chief executive of the CSIRO is to ensure the integrity and independence of our science is maintained. That’s not something I am prepared to compromise on.”
In other words, in Dr. Clark’s understanding, ‘scientific neutrality’ means that scientists can play in their labs all they want – as long as they do not publish any results which might influence the current political debate!
Of course, most actual scientists think that ‘scientific neutrality’ means that they do the science, find whatever answer is most objective, and then publish their results, without caring what any politicians think or plan or whatever!
Yet, Dr. Clark suggests ‘science neutrality’ means that ‘science’ (or scientists) must only publish findings which are ‘politically neutral’!!!
And, this is not the first time Dr. Clark has ‘protected’ ‘her scientists’ from ‘compromising’ their ‘scientific neutrality’ and presenting actual facts they learned through their scientific expertise – regardless of what the politicians thought! There are allegations that “four CSIRO scientists were not allowed to give evidence to a Senate inquiry into climate change in a CSIRO capacity”.
Of course, the fact that Dr. Clark is Australia’s Prime Minister’s ‘science advisor’ has nothing to do with her ‘protecting’ her employees from publishing or testifying to any scientific findings which might negatively impact her political master’s policy – and her ‘gravy train’!
Please – think about it. REALLY think about it.
Most of our science today is done in government-funded labs.
The people who head these government institutions may have scientific credentials, but they would not have clawed their way to the top if they were not politically astute and ‘bureaucrat first, scientist second’….
Yet these are the very same people who are in control of our scientists – who control what they may or may not publish, regardless of how true! Who are not afraid to bully and silence – and feel ‘righteous’ about it afterwards, because in their own warped brains, that is ‘the best thing for everyone’….
The sad thing is: most of them actually believe it.
And you wonder how we get things like ‘ClimateGate’!
Today, this came via email:
As you probably know, Big Internet Service Providers (Bell, Rogers, Shaw, etc.) are trying to take control of how we use the Internet. BUT Industry Minister Tony Clement can put a stop to this. So let’s send him a Christmas card asking him to give Canadians the gift of the Open Internet this holiday season!
Sign the card through Twitter.
Sign the card through Facebook.
Sign it on our site.
Tell Minister Clement to be our Open Internet Santa!
Thousands of people have already told Minister Clement to stop Big Telecom from taking control of our Internet use. Considering we’ve successfully pushed the CRTC to develop open Internet guidelines and convinced the two major political parties to support Net Neutrality, we can win this if we send the minister enough letters. If you haven’t already done so, please take a few seconds to send Tony Clement a letter.
If you’ve already taken action, tell all your friends.
Stay in the loop at SaveOurNet.ca and be sure to check out videos of our Open Internet Town Hall Events.
Thank you.
The SaveOurNet.ca team
My son told me I had to read this guy’s essays – they were brilliant!
I have barely ‘scratched the surface’ – but I do agree with him. His ‘news’ feed is also interesting.
Enjoy!
Some of the most popular post on this site are the guest-posts by CodeSlinger. Lately, I have been ranting on about the dangers of segregating school-aged children based on some ‘visible’ criteria: race, creed, sex, and the like. This intro is followed by a guest-post by CodeSlinger.
Since a race-segregated school has opened as a pilot project in Toronto, there have been calls for segregating boys out of ‘mainstream schools’ and into ‘boys-only’ classrooms or schools, run by male teachers (this latter part, of course, is contrary to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms), where the ‘goals’ set for the students would be ‘more achievable’ for ‘boys’. In other words, ‘maleness’ was re-defined as a ‘physical disability’ for which specialized, dumbed-down classrooms were needed….
CodeSlinger has thought about this: and, while he asserts that the current atmosphere in our public schools is very damaging to boys, especially when they are young, he has come to agree that the same people who have entrenched ‘Cultural Marxism’ in our classrooms cannot be trusted not to use their position of power and influence to ensure the ‘b0ys-only’ programs are not designed to be even more ‘toxic’ to boys than the current variety is!
As part of this debate, CodeSlinger has offered the following:
The Comprachicos
by Ayn Rand
[emphasis added by CodeSlinger]
The comprachicos, or comprapequeños, were a strange and hideous nomadic association, famous in the seventeenth century, forgotten in the eighteenth, unknown today …
Comprachicos, as well as comprapequeños, is a compound Spanish word that means “child-buyers.” The comprachicos traded in children. They bought them and sold them.
They did not steal them. The kidnapping of children is a different industry.
And what did they make of these children?
Monsters.
Why monsters?
To laugh.
The people need laughter; so do the kings. Cities require side-show freaks or clowns; palaces require jesters …
To succeed in producing a freak, one must get hold of him early. A dwarf must be started when he is small …
Hence, an art. There were educators. They took a man and turned him into a miscarriage; they took a face and made a muzzle. They stunted growth; they mangled features. This artificial production of teratological cases had its own rules. It was a whole science. Imagine an inverted orthopedics. Where God had put a straight glance, this art put a squint. Where God had put harmony, they put deformity. Where God had put perfection, they brought back a botched attempt. And, in the eyes of connoisseurs, it is the botched that was perfect …
The practice of degrading man leads one to the practice of deforming him. Deformity completes the task of political suppression …
The comprachicos had a talent, to disfigure, that made them valuable in politics. To disfigure is better than to kill. There was the iron mask, but that is an awkward means. One cannot populate Europe with iron masks; deformed mountebanks, however, run through the streets without appearing implausible; besides, an iron mask can be torn off, a mask of flesh cannot.
To mask you forever by means of your own face, nothing can be more ingenious …
The comprachicos did not merely remove a child’s face, they removed his memory. At least, they removed as much of it as they could. The child was not aware of the mutilation he had suffered. This horrible surgery left traces on his face, not in his mind. He could remember at most that one day he had been seized by some men, then had fallen asleep, and later they had cured him. Cured him of what? He did not know. Of the burning by sulphur and the incisions by iron, he remembered nothing. During the operation, the comprachicos made the little patient unconscious by means of a stupefying powder that passed for magic and suppressed pain …
In China, since time immemorial, they have achieved refinement in a special art and industry: the molding of a living man. One takes a child two or three years old, one puts him into a porcelain vase, more or less grotesque in shape, without cover or bottom, so that the head and feet protrude. In the daytime, one keeps this vase standing upright; at night, one lays it
down, so that the child can sleep. Thus the child expands without growing, slowly filling the contours of the vase with his compressed flesh and twisted bones. This bottled development continues for several years. At a certain point, it becomes irreparable. When one judges that this has occurred and that the monster is made, one breaks the vase, the child comes out, and one has a man in the shape of a pot.
– Victor Hugo, The Man Who Laughs [Ayn Rand’s translation]
Victor Hugo wrote this in the nineteenth century. His exalted mind not conceive that so unspeakable a form of inhumanity would ever be possible again. The twentieth century proved him wrong.
The production of monsters—helpless, twisted monsters whose normal development has been stunted—goes on all around us. But the modern heirs of the comprachicos are smarter and subtler than their predecessors: they do not hide, they practice their trade in the open; they do not buy children, the children are delivered to them; they do not use sulphur or iron, they achieve their goal without ever laying a finger on their little victims.
The ancient comprachicos hid the operation, but displayed its results; their heirs have reversed the process: the operation is open, the results are invisible. In the past, this horrible surgery left traces on a child’s face, not in his mind. Today, it leaves traces in his mind, not on his face. In both cases, the child is not aware of the mutilation he has
suffered. But today’s comprachicos do not use narcotic powders: they take a child before he is fully aware of reality and never let him develop that awareness. Where nature had put a normal brain, they put mental
retardation.
To make you unconscious for life by means of your own brain, nothing can be more ingenious.
This is the ingenuity practiced by most of today’s educators.
They are the comprachicos of the mind.
They do not place a child into a vase to adjust his body to its contours.
They place him into a “Progressive” nursery school to adjust him to society.
…
And what do they make of these children?
Monsters.
Why monsters?
To rule.
So begins Ayn Rand’s essay, The Comprachicos, written in 1970. Since then, the comprachicos of the mind have had almost another half century to refine their technique, broaden the front of their attack, and make sure, in their own words, that no child is left behind.
Download and read the whole essay here: Ayn Rand – The Comprachicos.
Then go do something about it!
Update: the link to a pdf version of Ayn Rand’s essay has been added
This is not an easy explanation – please, indulge me. I promise to make sense of it at the end.
For a century or so now, many experts have argued about what is more instrumental in determining a person’s fate: their nature (genetic predispositions) or nurture (the environment in which they are raised). Many experts today agree that there is some sort of a mixture of the two. I am not attempting to determine where this balance lies: I am simply making some observation that when very different social expectations are placed on young people, their very sense of ‘self’ – as defined with respect to society, how they belong, and so on, will be very different. And, that these grown ups will have very, very different expectations of their role in society and the role of society in their lives.
Let me use some examples…
Imagine a life in a village. Life is not so easy, and ‘everyone’ has to pitch in to help.
Most childcare is done through family: depending on the birthrate, either through immediate (nuclear) family, or by extended family. In these scenarios, the children would (usually) be in a group of 5-10 kids, either siblings, or siblings and cousins – looked after by their mother or a close female relative. Within this group, there would be kids of varying ages: from infants on up. It would be unusual for this group to have ‘many’ kids of exactly the same age.
Because the kids are of varying ages, there are differing expectations placed on them: the older ones are expected to help/be protective of/mentor the younger ones. This is very important, for several reasons.
It set up a ‘natural pecking order’ – one that was clear, obvious and acceptable: the older kids were higher up the social ladder than the younger ones. The expectations of them were higher – but, this went hand-in-hand with their increased prestige and social status within the group. Yes, the kids were all expected to learn skills – from the adults, as well as from the older kids. Not wanting to be surpassed in skills by the younger ones was an important motivator for learning and perseverance…
But, and this is perhaps most important, there were small, incremental successes. Every time a child held a younger sibling or cousin to calm their crying, every time they would feed the younger ones, or change diapers, or teach them to throw pebbles at the birds eating the harvest, or how to make a whistle from a willow twig – this would be an accomplishment.
These accomplishments will each – taken separately – be very small. But that does not make them unimportant! Together, these accomplishments add up. And
It is precisely through these small accomplishments that the person will self-define: each one builds the child’s self-confidence, confirming their important role in their social group, giving worth to their membership in that group. It gives them a sense of ‘ worthy belonging’.
And let’s not kid ourselves – we all have a need to belong, we all feel better when we know we are needed!
Of course, if one’s skills in a particular field are great, that individual may ‘skip up’ a few rungs in the social order. And, some societies only open specific roles to boys or girls, which may be detrimental to specific individuals. I do not deny that, nor do I claim this system is ‘perfect’. I simply comment on it, observing that in a small social group of children of varying ages, the social hierarchy/order is relatively easy to establish and learn for a young child, and that one’s expectations of ‘how to live and fit in’ are in accepting help/guidance from those ‘higher up’ the hierarchy, and in being protective of and being expected to help those lower down on that ladder. This develops both a sense of worth and reciprocity towards the group, but also of empathy with the other kids who will grow up into one’s peers.
In other words, this child grows up expecting society where reciprocity is the social norm and each individual is expected to be an active participant in the giving and receiving and will have a healthy sense of self-worth and connectedness with their society.
Now, let us consider another child, growing up in a society which is structured very differently….
Parents are expected to work in a structured environment, away from home. From an early age, children go to nursery school/kindergarten.
There, in order to facilitate ‘learning’ at ‘age-appropriate level’, they are grouped by age: each group of 15-50 children of the same age are put together into a ‘class’ and assigned one or more ‘teachers’, possibly with several ‘assistants’ or ‘helpers’. Thus, the adult-to-child ratio may be only slightly higher than in the previous scenario (it may even be the same), but the group itself is homogeneously composed of ‘peers’.
This sets up a very different social dynamic…
They are all peers!
There is no ‘easy’ way to establish a ‘pecking order’.
This, in itself, is rather disturbing to even young kids who generally need to understand where they fit in, socially. Interacting with a large number of ‘peers’, introduced and maintained as equals, is not natural to our psychological development – at least, not at the age of 3-5 years! So, this can be very, very confusing and instead of ‘age’ or ‘achievement’, social order in such a group (and there is always a social hierarchy in every group of humans) is decided by innate ‘dominance’ or ‘aggression’.
In addition, ‘mentoring’ or any attempt at ‘helping’ from one student to another is actively discouraged by the ‘teachers’ and their assistants as ‘bossiness’, ‘interference’ or even ‘bullying’ – even if it is offered with the best of intentions, in the most positive manner.
Instruction – of every student, in every aspect – is the exclusive domain of the teachers and their assistants, usually at a ‘common time’ and in a ‘common way’. It is simply ‘not the job’ of any child to help another – and such empathy-building activity is discouraged or even punished. Only ‘the teacher’ is permitted to ‘teach’, only ‘the teacher’ or ‘assistants’ are allowed to help!
This creates an environment where each child is a passive recipient of care and instruction. They ‘receive’ – and are punished for any attempt to ‘give’. Their self-worth is derived exclusively from their obedience to the adults in authority and their completion of ‘assignments’. Even the skill level at which the assignment is completed is often not evaluated on the grounds that this would stigmatize the less-competent students and thus discourage ‘learning’: simple obedient completion of the task, even in a sub-standard manner, in complete compliance with authority, is rewarded in todays kindergartens.
What is more – due to fears of accusations of sexual improprieties, teachers and their assistants are now (in Ontario Public School Kindergartens) not permitted to touch the students – even if the child falls down and is bleeding – beyond slapping on of a band-aid. If the child is upset, no hug is permitted to help calm him or her down. It is truly ‘an institutional experience’!
How different an adult will this child grow up to be, from the one in the earlier example?
‘Common Sense’ is often defined as ‘everything we learn before the age of 16’. Similarly, ‘everything we learn before the age of 5’ defines our ‘self-perception’, especially with respect to the society we live in, and our expectations of the ‘proper’ way to relate to it.
Thus, as the child who could expect protection and help from his/her older siblings/friends/family members – but who was equally expected to help and protect the younger ones – grows up, he or she is, on some sub-conscious level, expecting that in order to be good members of society, he/she needs to both take and give. In return for this reciprocity, they feel needed and connected…they know how they ‘fit in’ – even if only on a deep, non-verbalized level.
Similarly, the child who grows up, from an early age, strictly as a passive recipient of instructions and who is expected to be rewarded for obedience, or ‘performing assigned tasks’ rather than actively interacting in a social give-and-take (often being severely punished for trying to establish a socially reciprocal relationship with other kids) has, at a deep, subconscious level an expectation that they have to perform the minimum – and nothing beyond the minimum – designed tasks and that all else will be done for them. This programming is so deep in the sub-conscious, it is not consciously perceived. Rather, these are the ‘natural expectations’ children raised this way have.
At least, most of them do.
Which is why children raised in ‘kindergartens’ do not have the same perception of what constitutes their ‘self-worth’ as children raised in family or extended-family-type settings. It is not that they are somehow bad or lazy: just that from their earliest age, they were taught that reciprocity is punished and doing the minimum effort and passively accepting having all their physical needs taken care of is what society wants them to do. And, being the social creatures we are, we get ‘primed’ this way – and it never even occurs to us that there is something to question….
To the contrary: we see all people who behave in other ways as ‘needing to be punished’. After all, when we tried to be different, to help others, to hug a friend, to be ourselves, to show we can do something better than everyone else around us – we were punished! We were punished for ‘showing off’ or for ‘being bossy’ or for ‘not obeying’ or, just, for ‘not being passive’!
Is is any surprise that we have grown up into a generation which has strong feelings of entitlement – entitlement to be taken care of, to be passive recipients of care – and of great resentment towards anyone who tries to ‘show everyone up’ and succeeds? And that we are not even aware that these are ‘programmed’ values, because they seem so ‘natural and ‘universal’ to us?
Yes, I have not expressed my meaning very eloquently, perhaps not even as accurately as I tried to.
Still, please, think about it….
One of the most embarrassing episodes in the history of the USA are the ‘Salem Witch Trials‘.
The very home of one of the people executed for practicing ‘witchcraft’ , Rebecca Nurse, has been turned into a museum. It stands in today’s town of Danvers, MA, which was originally settled as ‘Salem Village’.
It seems that, once again, trouble is brewing in this quaint little town.
This time, it is not the Devil who is afflicting young people, but none other than the lovable-appearing Muppet, Beaker!
The affliction of the town’s young people – which causes them to exclaim ‘Meep!’ without provocation – has become so severe that the administrators of the Danvers High School have been forced to resort to banning the word, both written and spoken!
So, when such a posession by evil (?) Muppet begun to sweep through the youth population (some students even said ‘Meep’ AT a teacher!), how was the school to protect the students not yet infected into channeling this spirit? Obviously, the school had to take the strongest possible steps! According to news reports, the school instituted a rule (clearly communicated to all parents) that any student who utters this sound ‘Meep!’, or even wears an article of clothing with the word ‘Meep!’ on it, will face expulsion from school! Oh, and the police will be notified, too…
After all, what else could they do? Now, even MORE young people were affected than the LAST time – and they had to resort to ‘witch trial’ and executions then!!!
Could they learn a lesson from history?
Or, perhaps, educational professionals might have some of them ‘professional educational tools’ they could employ?
…don’t be ridiculous – that would mean actually doing their job!
They did what any authority in power these days seems to think is the ‘best’ way to deal with something they don’t like: BAN IT!!!
Of course, this hit the blogosphere pretty fast: I read about it on Dvorak Uncensored. They carry a quote from a lawyer who says she sent an email stating ‘Meep!’ (the address is publicly available on the school’s website, right margin) to the principal, vice principal and administrator, only to get a reply from the VP that her email has, indeed, been forwarded to the local police department….
This is serious matter: curbing the freedom of speech of students is nothing to Tinker with! The only circumstances – according to the US Supreme Court – that a student’s right to free speech may be abridged on public school grounds is if the ‘speech’ is ‘sexually explicit’ or if it ‘promotes the use of illegal substances’…. Of course, I am no lawyer, but, in my never-humble-opinion, the word ‘Meep!’ does not do either!
Despite the clear rules of law, the school leadership has deemed this offensive word, ‘Meep!’, to be such a danger and such a disruption, no amount of force is unjustified in getting rid of it!
Welcome to the Salem Muppet Hunt!
When I told my own kids about this situation, both my sons shouted out (simultaneously) “Reason!” and “Common Sense!” The point being, if the teens in Danvers High switched to saying ‘Reason!’ or ‘Common Sense’ in the same manner they are now using the term ‘Meep!’, would the school ban ‘Reason!’ and ‘Common Sense!’ ?
Some clever people (sorry, I lost the link) have suggested that, perhaps, the students might stop saying ‘Meep!’, but each and every one of them could, say, accidentally drop a textbook at 10:45 each and every day…. accidents DO happen….
Personally, I think they ought to continue the behaviour, but change ‘Meep!’ sound to ‘Baaaaaaaaah!’ After all, if the school WANTS them to behave like sheep, they might as well SOUND like sheep!
Now, I did not grow up with the Muppets: right generation, wrong continent. But, my husband did. And, he likes Beaker! He has the audacity to think that Beaker, contrary to the Danvers High administrators, is not actually evil! He asked me to send them this message (I recommend you turn the volume down – the music is seriously ‘wussy’, to the point of ‘ear-bleed-causing’, but the video does make the point): DON’T FEAR THE BEAKER!!!
Of course, there are those conspiracy-minded folk who think that the reason that the school had banned ‘Meep!’ is because during the 2008 US Presidential election, the Muppet Show endorsed Beaker for President – against Obama-Kermit! And that this is just political payback by Obama-Kermit cronies… Personally, I don’t believe a word of that! Though, if you would like adirect confirmation that this ‘conspiracy theory’ is ludicrous, perhaps you could ask the Danvers High School principal, Thomas Murray, directly. His email is murray@danvers.org )
All I have to say to the pedagogues of Danvers High:
TEACHER! LEAVE THOSE KIDS ALONE!!!!
Oh, and: Meep! MEEP!
The second annual ‘Infidel Blog Awards’ have just opened for nominations!
Stand up proud, all you thought criminals and free minds everywhere!
And, nominate your most (and least) favourite bloggers and pundits, independent thinkers enemies of censorship and oppression for recognition of their contributions!
This year, the categories are both domestic and international, so there is fun for everyone:
And just in case you were wondering who won last year – the results are here.
So, go and annoy a censor – check out, nominate and vote for your favourite free thinkers!
Via: BCF
A little while ago, I wrote to my MP (Member of Parliament) with some questions and concerns regarding the CHRC (Canadian Human Rights Commission).
This afternoon, I received this reply from my MP:
Thank you for taking the time to write to me with your question. I looked into it for you, and have this information from the Ministry of Justice:
· The Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal are independent agencies that administer the Canadian Human Rights Act without interference from the Government.
· The Member of Parliament from Westlock-St. Paul (Brian Storseth) brought forth a motion this Parliament asking the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to study the Commission’s mandate, operations, and its application and interpretation of section 13.
· The Committee adopted this motion. I look forward to the committee’s study of these issues, as well as the study of Professor Moon’s report.
With respect to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision, Warman v. Lemire, we cannot comment as the matter is before the court.
Warman v. Lemire:
At issue is whether the hate messages prohibition in s.13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is inconsistent with freedom of expression and other Charter rights, and whether the 1990 judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in Taylor , which held that s.13 is constitutionally valid, should
be reconsidered as a result of the evolution of the Internet and legislative amendments.
On September 2, 2009 the Human Rights Tribunal ruled s. 13 unjustifiably infringed on the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression.
Sincerely,
Pierre Poilievre, M.P. Nepean-Carleton
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
LP
Yesterday, Ms. Lynch (Chief Commissioner of our Canadian – federal – Human Rights Commission) had testified in front of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (or something like that – I confuse easily…). Our valiant defender of the right to not be annoyed – at the expense of the freedom of expression – was at her most patronizing!
Everyone’s favourite WebElf, Binks, has put the video on his site: enjoy! And, he has some fun linkies tossed in, for good measure!
Walker Morrow also has all the best links on his blog, with a regular round-up of all ‘Jennifer Lynch-related’: The Lynch Mob
Of course, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant have had a few words about this, too!
Actually, Ezra Levant has a whole set of posts, as he was blogging it live! (As were many other fine people – thanks to all of them!) And, of course, I could not help myself: while commenting at Mr. Levant’s site, I made a comment that can hardly be understood unless one knows some of my views on ‘things’….
Here is my comment:
OK – one more tiny little question…
If there were a job opening coming up for the head of the CHRC (as I suspect after today’s testimony, there just might be): how would one go about applying for the job?
My husband says I’d be good at it! (‘Change’ is still the ‘good’ mantra, right?)
The key here being ‘change’…. because, I do have a ‘slightly’ different idea of where the ‘balance of rights’ lies….
I do not have a passport, because as much as I am a Canadian patriot, I do not recognize the government’s jurisdiction over me on this issue. I am not the slave (chattal) of my government, for them to issue me some ‘papers’ which permit or deny me the right to travel, inside or outside of my country!
Sorry, that is just too much of a government encroachment upon me and my person!
Nor do I believe that a government has the jurisdiction to tax people against their will. A government only exists at the sufferance of the populace: its role is to provide external defense and to uphold internal laws. Citizens ought to be free to contribute to the upkeep of the government at their will – the government does not have the moral (and ought not have the legal) right to extort taxes from its citizens by coercion or force.
Do you think people would then not pay their taxes? I think we would. When is the last time you received an awesome service in a restaurant, and did not leave a tip? I have certainly never skimped….provided the service was acceptable and I am known to ‘overtip’ if the service is excellent! The same should go for taxes.
Because, if a government has the power to set the tax rate AND to FORCE the citizens to pay the taxes it sets, regardless of democracy or anything else, we will see irresponsible government spending, waste in the civil service, corruption… We all know the story!
Thus – in my never-humble-opinion – it is a gross violation of human rights and freedoms for a government to exact taxes by force of law, to collect personal information about its citizens, to issue ‘travel permits’, and so on. And, if I were the Chief Commissar of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, my first target would be the overbloated, over-reaching, oppressive government which is smothering us, our rights, denying us our freedoms!
THAT is the ‘change’ I was referring to in my comment….
Though, my husband thinks I’d be very effective at it!
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 