Vaclav Klaus’ Washington CEI speech

May 29, 2008 — xanthippa

This President is one smart cookie!

Yesterday, he delivered a speech in Washington, in which he said:

“It is interesting that you came up with the name Josef Alois Schumpeter (to intentionally use the Czech pronunciation). I don’t expect all of you to know that this great economist was born in 1883 on the territory of my country – the Czech Republic – in the small Moravian town of Třešť, belonging at that time to the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. He was part of an important group of Austrian Moravians which includes names such as Sigmund Freud, Gustav Mahler, Karl Kautsky, Ernst Mach, Robert Musil, and many others.”

…

“Reading his Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, which was published in England in the 1940s along with books such as Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom and Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four, one comes across a slightly different story, which is his evolutionary theory of the demise of capitalism based on its very success. His main argument – as I remember it – was that innovations would become a matter of routine, progress would be mechanized, problems would be “simply solved” by means of reason and science, entrepreneurship would be replaced by mere calculation, individual motivation would subside, collectivistic mentality would prevail and the growing importance of teamwork in modern large corporations would lead to the gradual obsoleteness and at the end disappearance of the crucial player (or perhaps mover) of capitalism – of the entrepreneur. That was his vision of the end of capitalism. He regretted it, but did not see it as the end of history, progress and development.”

…

“The first problem this theory has is its connection with the reality because the world has not followed Schumpeter’s predictions.”

The complete text is on Mr. Klaus’ blog.

This, to me, is a telling analysis:  this economist looks at the theory, evaluates its internal consistencies (or lack thereof) – and then COMPARES THE THEORY TO REAL-LIFE OUTCOMES !!!!

Not only did he do EXACTLY THIS with the IPCC-type AGW/ACC ‘theories’ (and I do use the term ‘theories’ loosely) in his book ‘Blue Planet in Green Shackles – What is Endangered:  Climate or Freedom?’, he also points out the necessary consequence of actions currently being implemented to ‘mitigate’ AGW/ACC:  establishment of world government. 

So, why would anyone think there are any dangers in establishing this ‘world government’?  Mr. Klaus warns that we just might me passing world government into the hands of arrogant elitists who are convinced that ‘they know better than the rest of us’….  He asserts that some of the same people who are advocating establishing world authorities to regulate carbon emission – with the power of enforcment (that is, world government) – that were also advocating this 30 years ago in the name of world socialism.  Just listen to Glenn Beck’s second interview with him: 

Kind of makes you pause and think, does it not?

It should!

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

‘Blue Planet in Green Shackles’ – the ISBN#

May 28, 2008 — xanthippa

This is the mystery of the disappearing planet….as in – where in the world can one purchase a copy of the English-language version of ‘Blue Planet in Green Shackles – What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?’

The English translation of this book by Czech Republic’s President, Vaclav Klaus, was released this week in Washington, D.C. – as I have learned from ‘The Reference Frame’, and wrote about earlier. I must admit, I was rather exited! Finally, I could get my hands on it and read what all this excitement is about.

Yet, I could not find how to get my hands on it! Judging from some of the responses I got, I am not alone…

My Mom always used to say: “If ever you are in doubt, ask a physicist!’ (Well, she said something like that – I think…) So, I did – and Mr. Motl from ‘The Reference Frame’ was kind enough to send me this reply:

Dear Xanthippa, the book is now printed in 17,000 copies only so it will disappear rapidly.

bn.com, http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Blue-Planet-in-Green-Shackles/Vaclav-Klaus/e/9781889865096/

has its ISBN codes:

* ISBN: 1889865095
* ISBN-13: 9781889865096
* Format: Paperback, 100pp
* Pub. Date: May 2008

Thank you, Mr. Motl!

Finally, here is a head of state who has actual scientific credentials! O.K., he’s not a physicist like Mr. Motl, but, Vaclav Klaus is pretty close: he may have been a mere economist (though a respected professor thereof), but he did spend most of his life at the Czech Academy of Sciences. Once politics no longer shackled his career (oh, I love how I worked that ‘shackled’ word in…sorry, it does not take much to amuse me…), he worked at Prognostics at the Academy of Science…. meaning, his professional expertise is in looking at scientific theories, understanding their implication, and then evaluating their long-term economic impact.

This means that President Klaus, more than any other world leader today, is eminently qualified to assess the IPCC report, both in what it says and in what the ‘remedial measures’ currently being implemented will have. I, for one, am very curious to read what he has to say. I wish that the World’s leaders would be, too!

Here is a link to Mr. Klaus’ speaking notes for the Washington D.C. release of his book:

“The whole process is already in the hands of those who are not interested in rational ideas and arguments.”

“The real debate should be about costs and benefits of alternative human actions, about how to rationally deal with the unknown future, about what kind and size of solidarity with much wealthier future generations is justified, about the size of externalities and their eventual appropriate “internalization”, about how much to trust the impersonal functioning of the markets in solving any human problem, including global warming and how much to distrust the very visible hand of very human politicians and their bureaucrats. Some of these questions are touched upon in my book. “

I, for one, am very curious to read what he has to say. Excuse me, I have to go talk to my local bookstore now…. in the meantime, here is Glenn Beck’s interview with Mr. Klaus on the topic of Global Warming activism:

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, science, society. Tags: , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Net Neutrality

May 27, 2008 — xanthippa

This is a very important issue.  Net neutrality is essential to maintaining the freedom of speech.

Unfortunaltelly, this issue often gets confused and muddled…  A clarification is needed.

‘Net Neutrality’ is the principle that it is the user who legitimately pays for the use of the internet OUGHT TO be the one who decides on the content, application or platform of their choice, without artificial limits imposed by either governments or by the internet access providers.  Here is a quote from Wikipedia on three different definitions of ‘net neutrality’:

Absolute Non-Discrimination: Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu: “Network neutrality is best defined as a network design principle. The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally.”

Google’s “Guide to Net Neutrality”: “Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days… Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online.”

Cardozo Law School professor Susan Crawford states that a neutral Internet must forward packets on a first-come, first served basis, without regard for quality of service considerations.

 It does not mean that internet access should be free of charge, rather, it should be free of restrictions.

Let me give you a real life example:  There is an internet provider in my geographic location that is a large company with many divisions.  One of the divisions is an ISP (Internet Service Provider).  Another division rents movies.  Then they started a third division, which provides digital phone service.

As an avid internet user, I paid for the ‘highest’ level of internet access possible – ‘unlimited bandwidth’.  No, it is not cheap – but I do not begrudge my ISP a healthy profit, IF they provide me with excellent service.

Now, there came a time when a real-life legitimate company opened an online movie rental service.  It is all proper, above the board, royalties are paid and all that – we are not talking about pirated content here.  How do they distribute the movies?  Via BitTorrents!

At about this time, surprisingly enough, my ISP provider begun ‘trafic management practies’ which effectively blocked ALL BitTorrent communications!

Their argument was that they, as the provider, had the right to ‘regulate traffic’.  The fact that the means through which they chose to do this effectively prevented me (and any other customer) from using the internet service purchased from their ISP division fromlegitimately conducting business with a direct competitor of their ‘movie rental’ division’ – well, that was just accidental…..  Yeah, right!

But the timing was even more curious than that!  At this time, they also introduced their ‘Digital Phone’ service – something which required quite a bit of bandwidth.  Yet, they had not really built extra capacity in – that would cost money….  So, by limiting my access (along with that of many other users), they have, in effect, ‘freed up’ the capacity to introduce their phone service without any major start-up costs!

My son uses BitTorrents for gaming – and has not been able to partake of it at all since these ‘traffic management’ measures have been introduced.  I cannot purchase a legal service from my ISP’s competitor. And, I have found out, that my ‘unlimited’ access is only good until I reach a certain limit:  yet my ISP will NOT TELL ME WHAT THAT LIMIT IS!!!  Until I reach it, of course, and find myself without access for the rest of the month…..

Frankly, I do not think this is a good way to treat one’s customers.  Yet, the companies who own the ‘internet pipeline’ are few and many are related.  There is a real danger that they may adopt ‘industry-wide practices’ which severly limit the rights of their users. 

From there, it is only a small step to controlling not just the protocols and applications, but also the content of the internet.  And where a State might not be legally able to curb a point of view, an internet provider might have the means and ability.  And, if they claim they fear a lawsuit should they allow certain content through, who is to stop them from censoring free speech?

Today, there was a rally for support of ‘Net Neutrality’.  For those of us who get much of our news this way, it is an issue worth thinking about.

It has always appeared to me that the best way to protect the freedom of the many is to protect the freedom of the one.

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

Blue Planet in Green Shackes

May 22, 2008 — xanthippa

Finally, there is a release date for the much-awaited English version of Czech President’s Vaclav Klaus’ book,

‘BLUE PLANET IN GREEN SHACKLES 

What is endangered:  Climate of Freedom?’

President Klaus will be presenting it on May 27th, 2008 at the National Press Club in Washington D.C..

Thanks to Lubos Motl from ‘The Reference Frame’ for the tip!

Posted in debate, education, freedoms, philosophy, politics, science. Tags: , , , , , . 7 Comments »

Yet another reason to skip the Beijing Olympics

May 21, 2008 — xanthippa

As if continuing to opress its population were not enough!

As if forcing women to undergo ‘abortions’ against their will were not enough! 

As if China’s continuous disregard for the environment were not enough!

As if its exploitation of Africa were not enough!

After all – all these things could not possibly outweigh our desire to ‘not dissapoint our athletes – or so we have been told by so many apologists…. 

Now, we have another reason for not going to the Olympic games in Beijing.  And this one actually poses danger to the athletes – and all the spectators – themselves!  No, not just the smog, or something equally long-term.  We are talking about real, immediate, physical danger.  And not just to them alone, but to everyone back home when they return, especially the kids.

What, do you say, could this be?

The National Post has an interesting article about the outbreak of the infectious hand-mouth-foot disease (HMFD) in China!  According to CDC, HMFD can be caused by several different viruses, some of them mild, some potentially deadly, especially to children.  The National Post article says this outbreak is caused by EV71, of which the CDC says:

“Another cause of HFMD, EV71 may also cause viral meningitis and, rarely, more serious diseases, such as encephalitis, or a poliomyelitis-like paralysis. EV71 encephalitis may be fatal. Cases of fatal encephalitis occurred during outbreaks of HFMD in Malaysia in 1997 and in Taiwan in 1998.”

This disease can be spread by such innoculous means as cutlery not washed in hot enough water (CDC).  It is usualy only serious for children and people with weakened health, but strong adults (like, say, athletes) can become infected without becoming symptomatic, and spread the virus for several weeks (like, say, when they return home to their kids).

In other words, the athletes and millions of Olympic spectators could become infected, without being symptomatic.  Most visitors and athletes would likely fly home – and airplanes, with their re-circulated air, are perfect incubators for infectious pathogens… ask any nurse! Once home, all these people will celbrate, hug and kiss their kids, relatives, friends….get together to show photos and talk….

This sounds like an ‘ideal’ way to spread this disease!

Oh, but China would take all precautions to contain the infection, right?  Ask world’s leading experts to help them do all it takes to protect its own citizens as well as Olympic athletes and visitors?  Right?

As luck would have it, Taiwan is seen as having some of the best expertise in containing this disease – they have successfully done it two times recently!  Nice and close – except that…  China is not willing to accept help! 

Not only has it refused Taiwanese experts entry, it has also banned Taiwanese journalists.  Its own official newspapers are not exactly forthcoming with information on the epidemic…  Nice to see how well they are handling it…their traditional way of deny, deny, deny!  No problem here!  Yeah, and you expect us to trust any assurances after this, too?  Some track record!

It would be foolish to allow people to attend the Olympics in the midst of a deadly epidemic (and children in China have died during this outbreak already).  Or, in the least, governments which allow its citizens to travel to the Beijing Olympics MUST, as a matter of national health policy, establish quarantine areas where anyone returning from Beijing will have to be detained for several weeks, until any danger of spreading the disease has passed (both athletes and visitors).

Now, this is a thoroughly NON-POLITICAL reason not to go to this Olympics! 

It would not be a political boycot.  Rather, it would be a prudent and responsible policy to prevent the worldwide spread of a disease that kills children.

Will THIS be enough to make the world do the right thing?

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

Is this a trickle of reason?

May 20, 2008 — xanthippa

Democracy is a wonderfu ideal.  Yet, there will always be a question of how to exercise our democratic rights, while preventing a ‘tyrrany of the majority’?

To many people, the best answer is:

Protecting the rights of each and every individual, the minority of ‘one’,  is the best and only way to ensure the protection of the whole society from tyrrany by the State.

Yet, not everyone agrees.  The philosophy which seems to currently be gripping much of ‘the Western world’ turns its back to the individual, turns a blind eye to the violations of individual freedoms, in favour of collectivism.  I have wondered how much of this is a philosophical difference, how much is simply due to the attitudes inherrent in different political systems.

Many people today think that the best way to ensure peope are not discriminated against – the best way to promote tolerance and harmony within a society – is to put limits on the freedom of speech.  By instituting ‘hate speech laws’, these people argue, hate and prejudice will not be allowed to spread and will, eventually, be eliminated from our society.

I wish this would be so!

Time and time again, ‘hate speech laws’ have not only failed to reduce prejudice, I woud argue that they have allowed it to fester, until a time when it erupts in hateful and abominable acts.  What is worse, they have resulted in political institutions which are invariably used to opress, all in the name of preventing opression.  We have seen this happen many times in history, but we still seem unable to learn the right lessons from history!  

Let us consider the example of  Germany in the 1930’s.  After all, it is precisely to prevent atrocities such as the Holocaust that ‘hate speech laws’ are being instituted.  Yet, in Maclean’s, Mark Steyn (both he and Macleans are also being persecuted under ‘hate speech laws’) quotes Canada’s leading libertarian lawyer, Alan Borovoy, as saying:

“Remarkably, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the Canadian anti-hate law. Moreover, those laws were enforced with some vigour. During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech. And, in the opinion of the leading Jewish organization of that era, no more than 10 per cent of the cases were mishandled by the authorities. As subsequent history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it.”

To the contrary!  Hitler, once elected, effectively used these laws to usurp power.

Should there be ANY limits on speech?  Mr. Levant, also currently being persecuted by the thought crime police, has videotaped part of his interrogation by the Alberta HRC.  He makes the most passionate, well reasoned speech on the attributes of free speech! 

But, is tide turning?

For the past several years, what would appear to be illegal behaviour in both its investigations and prosecutions by the HRCs in Canada has inexplicably been tolerated.  Now, this may come to an end. This week, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) have announced they are opening a criminal investigatigation of some actions by the HRCs.  Ezra Levant has more information on this. 

Australia may also be changing its ideas with regard to limiting freedom of speech.  As Robert Jago writes on Dime a Dozen, Australia’s Liberal Party is calling for a change to its ‘hate speech laws’, because they have been shown to promote, not curb, divisions in their society! 

But, perhaps the best news comes from Erope! Czech Republic is a nation of reason (fully 59% of Czechs describe themselves as atheists, agnostics or non-believers) and their scepticism extends to other areas, as well.  Lubos Motl, one of the world’s leading theoretical physicists, writes that Vaclav Kaus, the President of Czech Republic, has vetoed an ‘anti-discrimination’ bill.  His justification?

“I consider the bill to be a useless, counterproductive, and low-quality bill while its consequences seem to be problematic….”

 Good on you, Czechs!

You can read the full, well reasoned and excellent speech here.  Mr. Motl writes that, ironically, “Because the bill has been “ordered” by the European bureaucrats and the country may face sanctions (let’s say it: the Czechs may be discriminated against) if the anti-discrimination bill is not approved”

Yes, the overwhelming bureacracies still want to control every aspect of society, including what we say and think.  But, little stories like this make me hopeful.  Perhaps these are the beginnings of a real change in attitudes:  one that will place more value on each and every individual, and treat all of us with the respect and equality in the eyes of the law that we deserve!

Has the dyke of opression finally sprung its first little leaks of reason?

 

P.S.  President Klaus’ book, ‘Blue Planet In Green Chains – What is Endangered:  Climate or Freedom’ is due for release in English this month.  

Posted in freedoms, human nature, opression, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . 3 Comments »

A Father with Real HONOUR!

May 19, 2008 — xanthippa

Oppression comes in many forms, all of them disgusting and condemnable.  All of them have something in common:  the willingness to sacrifice the rights and well being of an individual, a specific human being, for some higher principle.  The principle itself is less imoportant – and it varies from ‘the good of the society’, or ‘religious piety’, or, paradoxically, ‘family honour’.

The opressors smugly wrap themselves in the ‘cloak of righteousness’.  They truly and honestly believe their ends justify the means…which they NEVER do.

I planned to write about something else today, when I came across this  article on ‘A Chocoholic’s Piece of Mind’ blog:  Rand Abdel-Qader, a 17-year-old student, was murdered by her father an brother for being seen speaking to a Brit soldier….  She worked as an aid worker, and spoke English…translated and became infatuated.  No affair, no clandestine meeting, just a schoolgirl crush…and translating for him, as part of the volunteer work she did with refugee families. 

I wonder what another Rand, Ayn Rand, would have to say about this…her father’s reaction (quoting the article linked above) was:

‘Death was the least she deserved,’ said Abdel-Qader. ‘I don’t regret it. I had the support of all my friends who are fathers, like me, and know what she did was unacceptable to any Muslim that honours his religion,’

…

‘I have only two boys from now on. That girl was a mistake in my life. I know God is blessing me for what I did,’ he said, his voice swelling with pride. ‘My sons are by my side, and they were men enough to help me finish the life of someone who just brought shame to ours.’

…

He said his daughter’s ‘bad genes were passed on from her mother’. Rand’s mother, 41, remains in hiding after divorcing her husband in the immediate aftermath of the killing, living in fear of retribution from his family. She also still bears the scars of the severe beating he inflicted on her, breaking her arm in the process, when she told him she was going.

…

Sources have indicated that Abdel-Qader, who works in the health department, has been asked to leave because of the bad publicity, yet he will continue to draw a salary.

And it has been alleged by one senior unnamed official in the Basra governorate that he has received financial support by a local politician to enable him to ‘disappear’ to Jordan for a few weeks, ‘until the story has been forgotten’ – the usual practice in the 30-plus cases of ‘honour’ killings that have been registered since January alone.

…

Abdel-Qader, 46, a government employee, was initially arrested but released after two hours. Astonishingly, he said, police congratulated him on what he had done. ‘They are men and know what honour is,’ he said.

This is not honour, and we must stop thinking that just because people come from different parts of the world, they should not be expected to treat each other – including their daughters and wives – with respect.  Thinking these attitudes are too deeply entrenched is a very insidious and destructive form or racism, and we must all work together to show it is unacceptable!

Please, indulge me with a story about an Iranian man and HIS attitude towards his teenage daughter:

When I came to Canada as a teenager, I befriended an Iranian girl who arrived at about the same time.  They were devout Muslims.  At her apartment, my friend showed me the charcoal-gray hijab she was forced to wear in Iran – the very first one I ever saw – and I tried it on.  Her father was angry at the sight of the hijab.   What he said has made a deep impression on me, and is with me still.

He told me that the hijab was not part of Islam.  Not even a little bit.  He explained that when the Koran was written, the rights it granted women were much more than women had in that society before, and that it meant that the Prophet wanted to eventually bring full equality between men and women.  It just had to happen one step at a time.

The hijab, he went on, was a symbol of opression:  not just of women, but of all true Muslims by those who wish to have power over them.  He was very angry that they would do this, when the religion itself teaches the equality of all humans.  He was also angry that many young Mulsimas were brainwashed to think the hijab was a symbol of a proudly pious Muslima – he said teaching young women that was a crime against Islam, because it was a part of a doctorine that reduced them from humans to possessions.

He explained that in Iran, he had done well, a professional with his own business…but he left because he would not allow his daughter to be brought up in a society which would only treat her as cattle, or a piece of meat!  He wanted her to grow up a good Muslima who has confidence in herself as a person, and who is not a slave to anyone…in other words, as a real human being!

Now THERE is a FATHER WITH HONOUR!!! 

If only more men – Muslim or otherwise – would have enough honour to value their daughters as much as my friend’s father valued her!

Posted in freedoms, immigrants, opression, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

‘First they silenced…’

May 16, 2008 — xanthippa

 The old saying says:

Those who do not learn from the past are destined to repeat it.

Perhaps we should re-phrase it to:

Those who do not learn the right lesson from history are destined to repeat it. 

After all, learning the wrong lesson could be worse than learning no lesson at all!

This all goes back to my rant on how often people do not recognize the difference between ‘symptom’ on the one hand, and a ’cause’ on the other.  Are they really so difficult to tell apart?

Many years ago, I went through a period when I was reading a lot of eyewitness books about WWII and the political atmosphere in Europe following the war.  I came across something intersting that Barbara Amiel had written:   she spent her childhood in ‘wartime London’.  Following the war, there was a determination among her relatives that nothing like this must ever be allowed to happen again.  And because Hitler was perceived as being ‘right wing’, Ms. Amiel asserts, ‘everyone’ became suspicious of – and opposed to – everything that was deemed to be ‘right wing’.

In other words, the lesson this group of people learned was:

  1. Hitler = right wing
  2. Hitler = evil
  3. ergo, right wing = evil

This is almost as sophisticated reasoning as that used for forcing women to wear a hijab, so they would not tempt men to rape them – as uncovered meat tempts cats to eat it. In other words, that is not the correct lesson.  Yet, many very intelligent people still fall into this trap in one form or another.

Yet, lots of people do learn the right lesson.  This one may be exemplified by the ‘First they came for…’ poem, attributed to Martin Niemoller:

“First they came for the Communists, but I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

Yet, even now, people are misunderstanding the poem!  So, please, in my never-humble way, let me pay homage to the right lesson here and write today’s version, as it could be.

“First they silenced the crackpot and nutcases, but I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a crackpot or a nutcase.

Then they silenced the bloggers, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a blogger.

Then they silenced the journalists, newspapers, magazines and books, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a journalist and didn’t write newspapers, magazines or books.

Then they silenced the Christians, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t religious.

Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left who was allowed to speak.”

If we fail to learn this lesson, this will be in store for us!  This is NOT HISTORY!  This is now, here, in OUR WORLD! 

This is what happens when people think a political party, or a particular political bend is the problem and fail to recognize that political oppression and governments who do not follow due process of law to achieve their ends that is the problem!!!  And if you are an adult, and not afraid to see a graphic example of the result of a state not bound by its laws is, here are some pictures that were too gruesome to print in a newspaper. 

But I warn you – do not look if you are sqeemish.  It took me a while to realize what part of the human body I was really looking at…

As it is taking so many of us to realize what type of oppression it is that we are facing!

Posted in freedoms, human nature, opression, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . 4 Comments »

Common law vs. civil law

May 15, 2008 — xanthippa

Humans form communities – that is one of our defining (and best) characteristics.  In order to coexist peacefully, we must agree on a set of rules to govern our interactions. Yet, different communities don’t always go about it the same way.

Some adopt ‘common law’, which takes the approach that all behaviours are permitted, except for those deemed to be harmful, which are then specificly forbidden under the law.  This suggests an underlying philosophy that each person is a free, independent individual.  People ought to be free to act according to their will, and only those behaviours that infringe upon the rights of other individuals within the community to enjoy thier freedoms are forbidden. The goal of laws is to ensure all individual members of the society are able to exercise their freedoms as much as possible.

Communities which develop one of the forms of ‘Civil law’ have a different point of view.  They specifically list the behaviours which are acceptable to the society and permits them, all others are forbidden.  This suggests a philosophy that it is ‘the society’ which is the ‘basic unit of worth’, not the ‘individual’.  As such, it is the goal for the laws to protect the society.

This is a really big philosophical difference. 

It seems to me that common law promotes individualism, while civil law seems more focused on collectivism.

Of course, this is a major simplification.  Also, there are several forms of civil law. This is not intended to be an exhaustive description…  Rather, it is meant to explore the differences in the philosophical undercurrents between societies which choose to govern themselves under civil or common law.  It is not meant to look at the specifics as they are, but at the patterns of thought that led to the differing attitudes of how we ‘ought to’ govern ourselves.

Common law (in its idealized state) sees the individual as the empowered one, the one with inherrent rights who chooses to lend some freedoms to the state in order to create a society.  The law is loath to interfere with these rights and freedoms of each one of its citizens and will only curb them with great reluctance.  It could be summed up by the sentiment: 

‘Upholding the rights of the one ensures the rights of the many.’

Civil law sees the society as the one with all the power.  ‘These are (or ‘ought to be’)  the customs of our society, thus codified here into law.  Do not stray outside of these behaviours, or you will have to answer to the state.’  And while many countries that practice civil law have accepted that an accused individual has the right to a fair trial, including a presumption of innocence, not all of them do.  It could be summed up by the sentiment:

‘Every one must adhere to these rules, because they are in the best interest of the society.’

Many modern countries do incorporate some aspects of both philosophies.  Rather than opposite sides of a coin, I see these as different ends of a continuous philosophical spectrum.  Most countries fall somewhere within this spectrum, and may move along it in one direction or another with time.

Yet, regardless where along this spectrum a particular state’s legal system lies at any specific time, these underlying philosophies will influence its attitude towards its citizens.

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

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

A letter to my PM

May 14, 2008 — xanthippa

For those of you not following the Canadian struggle for free speech, this letter, which I emailed my Member of Parliament today, may seem a little confusing.  Here is a REALLY quick recap:

In order to provide disadvanteged groups easy and affordable access to legal protection agains illegal discrimination, Human Rights Commissions (HRCs) were established several decades ago:  one federal (Canadian, or CHRC) and one for each province.  These HRCs have, lately, been interpreting their mandate in unforseen ways, asserting that any speech which ‘potentially could’ have negative impact on individuals or groups because of their race, creed, disablitiy, and other reasons, must be censored and that this censorship overrules any rights of freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of thought.

Many individuals, and some media organizations, have been going through several years long legal battles in their defense of their inalienable rights.  Even the very people who originally created the HRCs have been apalled at the misuse of their powers in recent years…  What is even worse, recently released tribunal transcripts contain admissions by some HRC employees which suggest that in their zeal to pursue (and entrap) people whom they are investigating, criminal laws are being violated.  That is a serious matter, because no government agency should be allowed to break laws in order to enforce laws…

The Minister of Justice recently said what I understand to mean that as far as the Canadian Government is concerned, all is fine…hence, my letter.

Dear Mr. [MP], 

Thank you for your kind reply, in which you say you will direct my concern over the HRCs and their actions directly to the Minister of Justice.  It arrived at about the same time as the Minister of Justice made his position on this situation known….   

How unfortunate that the official Government position is based on a brief by Mr. Tsesis, who is not regarded highly among the experts in this area and whose disregard for supportable facts required to assess causality can clearly be seen in the document he produced. 

For example, Mr. Tsesis claims:  “[Hitler fomented] a mass delusion that Jews were responsible for bad times, and as a result, a Holocaust could be perpetrated against them without general opposition.”   This displays blatant ignorance of (or disregard for) the fact that during the 1930’s, Germany did indeed have ‘hate speech’ laws, which (ironically?) were almost identical to those we have in Canada today!  Jewish leaders in Germany in the 1930’s expressed satisfaction with the protections from persecution which they and their community received under these ‘hate speech’ laws. 

Since ‘hate speech’ laws were present in Germany of the 1930, proposing (as Mr. Tsesis does) that our current ‘hate speech’ laws are the one tool necessary to prevent another Holocaust-like event is an error of judgment at best, intentionally misleading at worst.  Either way, it clearly demonstrates the unsoundness of the conclusions in this document.   Basing our national Justice policy on it would be ill advised.

How embarrassing for our Government, to reveal that this is indeed its intention!  How embarrassing for our Minister of Justice!

 Yet, my original comment was not intended to request a simple review of the policies of the Human Rights Commissions by the Government.  It is essential that the Government maintain its ‘arm’s length’ distance from judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.  That should not change.   

The HRCs answer directly to the Parliament of Canada.  It is essential that the Parliament of Canada ensures that bodies such as the HRCs do indeed perform the tasks for which they had been created, and that they conduct themselves in accordance with the laws of Canada, the very laws they were created to uphold!  

 There is a widespread perception among the citizens of Canada that employees of these commissions may have broken criminal laws of Canada while performing investigations on behalf of the HRCs.  This perception is largely based on the information in legal documents, transcripts of hearings from the HRCs themselves.  These statements were given under oath, and in them an employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission describes actions he took while acting on behalf of the HRC which appear to be a clear and direct breech of the criminal laws of Canada, as well as a blatant breech of the very ‘hate speech’ laws the CHRC was created to uphold.

 It is not, and must never become, tolerable for an Agent of the State to break the laws of the State while acting on behalf of the State.  In order to assure the integrity of our governance structures, it is essential that a full criminal investigation be launched immediately, to determine whether laws were indeed broken, or not. 

 If it is found that criminal laws were broken, a further in-depth investigation will be required to determine whether some rogue employees broke criminal laws on their own, or if the policies of this public institutions are the root causes of criminal behaviour by its employees – in which case, a full evaluation of all the procedures and methodologies of the HRCs would need to be done.  If a criminal investigation determines that laws were indeed broken, laying criminal charges will be required against every employee who broke our laws as well as against all supervisory personnel (currently or in the past employed by the HRC’s), who, through ignorance or complicity, allowed this illegal behaviour within their department to take place. 

 If the perception that criminal laws are being broken at the HRCs is erroneous, it is important that we, the citizens of Canada, see them exonerated, so that we may again place our trust in our government agencies and institutions.  

 This determination cannot be made without a full criminal investigation of the HRCs, their procedures, methodologies and practices, as well as of the conduct all of its employees, past and present.  Therefore, I ask that you, Mr. Poilievre, as my Member of Parliament to which the HRCs report directly, channel your efforts and energies to launching a full and thorough investigation into this whole mess.

 Thank you.

If you wish to read more on this saga, please see the excellent sites Blazing Catfur, Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, Small Dead Animals, and many, many more…

Posted in debate, freedoms, human nature, language, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . 12 Comments »
« Older posts
Newer posts »