Just imagine all the … oppression?

October 14, 2009 — xanthippa

We are used to being able to display our political views on our property.  During elections – municipal, provincial or federal – we are used to being able to display a sign on our front lawn, or in our window, which proudly proclaims which candidate we are supporting.  One election, my in-laws each supported a different candidate:  and proudly displayed two political signs on their front lawn!

Now, imagine a place where doing this:  displaying your political views (either on your front lawn or inside your window) would earn you a $10,000.00 per day fine… and 6 months in jail!  Plus, the police would have the power to come onto your property, inside your home, and remove the ‘offensive’ sign.

Where is this place?

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada – 2010!!!

We are used to being able to protest – publicly – for or against any cause or issue.  Sure, we ought to get a permit and obey rules of public order.  That is the civilized way to do it.  A government has the right to regulating the ‘HOW’ – but only in the respect that the protest does not interfere with public order and safety (like, say, shoving your kids into the middle of a busy highway, to make your point…).  It does not, and MUST NOT, have the right to regulate THE SUBJECT of any protest.

Now, imagine a place where all protests regarding a specific subject were 100% banned!  A place where people were forbidden to express a specific, non-violent, non-hate-mongering point of view!  Where any expression whatsoever which contravened the ‘official line’  was forbidden.

Where is this place?

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada – 2010!!!

Any and all signs (including private ones!) which ‘do not celebrate’ the Olympic Games are banned.

Any protest which might mar the festivities is banned.

Any commercial ‘in, on or above’ the official venues – but whose sponsor had not paid the incredibly high IOC ‘sponsorship’ extortion money (and, they only allow for one ‘sponsor’ in a particular field:  if you are a small, local business – how will you compete with the multinationals?) … any such sign is, predictably, banned.  (Consider a scenario where you have two restaurants in one building:  one sells Coca-Cola, the other a small, local gourmet-made-in-small-batches Cola – and both have neon signs advertising their beverage of choice.  If the business below became ‘official venue’ of the Olympics, because ‘their’ drink became the ‘official sponsor’, that business would be allowed to display their signs and attract customers.  The business above would be forced to remove or cover up their sign (at their own expense) and would not be allowed to even try to attract customers….  Some law!)

Oh, and just in case you were wondering, non-IOC approved ‘voice amplification equipment’, from private boomboxes to megaphones, are – banned.

These are the rules which the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is imposing on Vancouver while it is hosting the 2010 Olympic games!

Oh – and while they’re at it:  they have exclusive ownership of such specific words like ‘winter’ and ‘2010’ !

OK – I have been a very vocal critic of the Olympic Games.

For a long time, I have ranted on and on that this abomination ought to be abolished.  And, prior to the Bejing Olympics, I have written about it.  Now that they are being held in Canada, I have not changed my mind.  To the contrary:  I wish this corrupt and corrupting organization stayed out of my country!

In addition to my objections to the Olympic Games on that  whole unbelievable institutional corruption basis, I also object on the grounds that it degrades sports and diminishes the spirit of sportsmanship.  Sports are supposed to be about being healthy:  healthy body, healthy spirit and all that.  A balance in life.

Yet, today’s top athletes push their bodies way beyond the point of what is healthy!  In their attempt to be the best of the best, athletes do thing to their bodies (both legal and illegal – but, I am focusing on the ‘legal’ bit here) way past what is actually healthy or good.  From microfractures in many bones – including the spine (like, say, gymnasts whose pursuit of Olympic ideals delays even the onset of their puberty by years, if not a decade…a summer sport, true, but it is just the tip of the iceberg) which spell a future racked with arthritis to pushing their tendons and muscles well beyond their healthy limits.  In a very real sense, we have taken what ought to be a healthy hobby and turned it into a self-destructive, government-funded job.  No more, no less…

And as for sportsmanship….please, don’t make me laugh!

It is no longer about a friendly sports game!  Winning is now a matter of national pride!  How many medals a country wins – or looses – somehow becomes a measure of the whole nation’s worth! No, not how they treat each other, not how well they treat and educate their kids, not how good their economy or how excellent their science programs.  No.  These things no longer matter.  In a very real way, Olympic athletes are turned into weapons in a war!

But, those are not the reasons for this particular rant.  No, my fear here is about something much, much greater than some public funding of private hobbies or glorification of physical self-mutilation…  I speak of nothing less than our freedom of speech!

The IOC – an organization which has, over and over and over, been demonstrated to be corrupt to its core – is now in charge of what free citizens of a supposedly free country may – or may not – express!  On their private property, none the less!

If I am still not making myself as clear as I ought to (and, I do know that is my weak spot), let me approach it from a different angle…

Some people have experienced how the ‘Patriot Act’ south of our boarder had, in the name of security, taken some serious ‘liberties’ with the American citizens freedoms (pun intended), as guaranteed them in the US constitution, see how the ironically named Human Rights Commissions are trampling over real human rights in Canada (and other places, too), and  fear that ‘governments’ are a serious threat to our freedoms in general, freedom of speech in particular.

Others have pointed to the oppressive copyright laws – the ones which treat all consumers as criminals, before any evidence is even gathered – and other corporate ‘protections’ will be the greatest  threats to our freedom of speech and expression to us in the future.  Frankly, I agree with this point of view:  the evidence is overwhelming…

In the Olympic Games, the worst aspects of both of these are rolled into one:  there is a political body which is suppressing all opposition to itself, silencing all criticism of it.  At the same time, this same political body had sold exclusive rights for commercial activity and advertising to a select group of large multinational corporations and is willing and able to persecute any and all small businesses (or, indeed individuals) who refuse to submit to its ‘regulations’.

There is a word which defines collusion of government with big business in order to control the marketplace and silence opposition.  That word is fascism.  By definition.

And I, for one, do not want any fascism in Canada!

UPDATE: Canadian Centre for Policy Studies launches Free Speech petition:

We the undersigned call on lawmakers at all levels of government in Canada to: A) Examine all legislation within their jurisdiction intended to protect and promote human rights, and

B) To amend said legislation to remove those provisions that prohibit or otherwise limit the free and sincere expression of opinion.

(via BCF)

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

No Guide Dogs Allowed!

October 10, 2009 — xanthippa

School is supposed to be a place for learning.

A place where kids feel safe.

A place where all possible care is taken to make learning possible.

Yet, at least one school had set up a committee to decide whether or not to allow a disabled child’s guide dog to accompany her to school.

What?

Our society is rightly supportive of disabled people, and doubly so for those who work hard to succeed despite their disability.   Since different people have different needs and preferences, we have developed a myriad of tools to aid them.

One such ‘tool’ – perhaps ‘the classical one’ – is the guide dog.

These canines are not just some loving pets.  They go through a screening process which permits only the most intelligent, non-aggressive animals to be entered into a rigorous training program.  And only the best of the best ever graduate to become certified guide dogs.

And that is not the end.  Now that the dog has become a highly trained professional, it is carefully matched with the person whom it is to assist, to ensure compatibility.  And there are courses to teach the disabled person and the dog how to communicate with each other, as well as to teach the dog the skills which it will require to aid this specific person.

That is doubly so in the case of a guide dog assigned to a child!

Cargo made it through all that training!  Fully trained, graduated and certified as an official guide dog, Cargo was assigned to a young girl named Annika Merner.  A ‘feel good’ story, right?

Except that,Colchester North Elementary School in Essex, Ontario, where Annika is a grade 4 student, will not permit Cargo to enter school property!

Why?

Well, some kids might be allergic to dogs…

Please, do not misunderstand:  I am not making light of allergies, especially serious ones.  They could affect a child’s ability to learn – no question about it.

But, surely, in a civilized society, we can figure out a way to accommodate both!  The school and the parents of all the affected kids could sit, talk, figure out a workable solution based on the level of allergies of the individual students that were affected and their relative location in the school.

Could they not?

Why wouldn’t they?

But that did not happen.  Nothing like that.  Just a simple ‘No dogs on school property – no exceptions for guide dogs!’

Only after Annika’s parents pointed out that this is not only unfair to their child, but actually against the law – guide dogs are exempted from ‘no dog’ rules – the Greater Essex County District School Board formed a committee last November to examine the issue…

Now, eleven months later, they have still not come up with any decision – and little Annika is still going to school without her guide dog.

Good news:  in two weeks, the committee might come out with a decision which might permit the use of a guide dog on school property.

Ah, the mighty ‘might‘!

How grand of them!

This – in my never-humble-opinion – is indicative of a much greater problem in our society.  We have lost the ability, desire – or both – to get along with each other amicably without long and convoluted sets of rules, whose application often blurs the line between accommodating a real, physical disability and frivolous grievances which are a matter of choices and opinions.

It is precisely to deal with situations like Annika’s that the Human Rights Commissions (Tribunals) (HRCs) were formed!  Their whole ‘raison d’etre’ was making sure that people were not discriminated against based on things they had no control over, like their race or disabilities.

After all, one cannot simply choose to no longer be disabled.  A person cannot become a member of a different race by changing their opinion or belief.  These are not a matter of choice!

To discriminate against someone because of something one cannot change, one cannot choose to change, to deny a person the best possible chance to start out from ‘ as level a playing field as physically possible’ – that is wrong!  And we, as a society, must not tolerate it.  Ever.

Of course, we can never overcome a disability someone else has for them – but we should and MUST do our best to permit disabled people the tools to help them overcome it as much as possible.  Even if it means allowing their guide dogs access to places where pet dogs are not permitted.  Like, say, school…

That is a reasonable accommodation!

Instead, we – as a society – have lumped ‘accommodation’ based on ‘choices, opinions and/or beliefs’ and given them equal or greater importance than accommodation because of real disabilities.

In 2006, Canadian Supreme Court unanimously decided that even though knives of all kinds are banned on school property, a Sikh boy can carry a 10cm blade because he believes his religion requires it.  This, despite the testimony of Sikh religious leaders who stated that carrying a picture of the ceremonial dagger is sufficient to satisfy the religious requirement.

In effect, the Supreme Court of Canada said that religious belief is sufficient grounds for weaponizing our schools!

Please, contrast the two cases:  one child, based on ‘belief’, is permitted to bring weapons to school… while a disabled child’s certified guide dog is banned!

We have, with the HRCs acting as enforcers, elevated people’s choices and opinions into a place which is supposed to be reserved to stop discrimination based on things people have no control over!

Certainly, we must tolerate other opinions and personal beliefs – but we should not be obligated to accommodate them to as high a degree as if they were something the person could not exercise a choice over.  Like, say, one’s race or physical disability…

Posted in Aspergers, education, freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 7 Comments »

A ‘Czech-mate’ for the Lisbon Treaty?

October 8, 2009 — xanthippa

If you are a political junkie, or somebody who values their freedom, you are familiar with ‘The Treaty of Lisbon‘.

If not, then, very briefly, here is the background:

The Lisbon Treaty is the constitution-type-document-thingie which would finally establish the EU as a legal, supranational political entity which can act independently.  Most EU countries have already ratified and signed the Lisbon Treaty (though the English opposition – if they gain power in the next election, plans to withdraw England’s support – if they can…), so the EU is already planning to act as a full legal entity, entering into international agreements on behalf of its member nations (read here ‘and no longer requiring their approval to do so’).

However, freedom-loving people – and people who care about children – have some serious problems with the Lisbon Treaty.  In no uncertain terms, the Treaty of Lisbon legalizes pedophilia.

Yes, pedophilia.

If the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, no person can be persecuted (and prosecuted) based on ‘sexual orientation’ – including the ‘sexual preference for raping children’.

Read it and weep – I did!

VictimlessCriminal explained it rather well in his video.

Whatever else may be contained in the Lisbon Treaty, its legalization of pedophilia disgusts me and makes the whole document, in my never-humble-opinion, bad, evil and every other negative term you’d like to attach to it.

Ireland has just ratified it:  the Irish people have allowed the promise of cash to sell out their kids, just like most other Europeans have already done.

There are still two holdouts:  the Polish and Czech president have steadfastly refused to sign.  There are rumors that the Polish president, Lech Kaczynski, will sign the Lisbon Treaty this coming Sunday (though, his brother claims the rumors are false).  As for the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus – well, the story gets more interesting.

President Klaus (author of ‘Blue Planet in Green Shackles’) has told the Swedish Swedish Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, that he would sign – provided they agree to insert a footnote into the ‘Fundamental Rights’ section of the Treaty!

Of course, I hope it will be a footnote that prohibits pedophilia.

There is an awesome and insightful analysis of this (not the pedophilia bit – rather, the ‘political dancing’) from Lubos Motl of The Reference Frame:

I have always thought that the Czech president is a kind of an ingenious politician. He believes in great ideas and principles and he is courageous enough to defend them. However, as far as I understand, he’s also playing politics like chess and he’s often able to defeat seemingly stronger and more numerous foes.

…

I actually think that the footnote won’t be related to any particular Czech issue.

It will be more universal in its character, it will be somewhat innocent, and its content won’t matter much. I think that the point is that the footnote would have to be approved at least by the EU Council (and who knows, maybe even a new Irish referendum). But even an innocent footnote will split this group. Some of them will say “No way, Klaus has no right to add new delays or modify the treaty” while a few of them will say “Why not, it’s a great chance to pay a small price and put the treaty to life – and a president must surely have the right to add at least a footnote, as long as we’re a democracy.”


…

Of course, Klaus may also want to demand a non-trivial footnote that significantly changes the content or the validity of the treaty. Well, such things are usually not written in the footnotes. If this were the case, it would mean that Klaus is determined to fight against the treaty to the very end, in very transparent terms.

Interesting – especially considering, as Mr. Motl points out, that President Klaus is enjoying over 70% approval ratings in Czech.

Let’s hope the Czechs save the kids of all of Europe!

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , . 7 Comments »

Section 13(1) and Aspergers

October 7, 2009 — xanthippa

OK – this is a topic that people who know me have had to listen to me rant on and on and on….

And, I have tried to write it up – and have at least 18 drafts to prove it…

Because… this is something SOOO IMPORTANT that it deserves the most perfectest write up ever!

Because… this shows an internal inconsistency in the Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Code – the ‘Hate Speech’ bit!

It clearly demonstrates that Section 13(1) is in contravention of itself!!!

That, if I my layman’s understanding of our legal system holds, would render the whole thing illegal.  After all, a law may not contravene itself, may it?

Yesterday, I got a comment on my last post, which said exactly the same thing I had been ranting on and on about.  (The comment, not the post – well, the post, too, but that is implied.)

Actually, I read it out loud to my husband, who thought I was reading my words, so close was the sentiment!

Hi Xanthippa.

Your blog has got me thinking… Perhaps we Aspies particularly resent censorship boards like Canada’s because we are used to “saying it like it is”, speaking the truth (as we see it) bluntly and plainly, and not being stopped by thin-skinned people taking offence. Aspies can’t detect _likely_ offence in advance, and if we played it safe and avoided all _possible_ offence, we’d never say anything!Whereas those who support Canada’s state censorship system are probably neurotypicals who are good at treading their way carefully, taking cues from context. They have picked up, for example, that joking about assassinating President Bush is “brave dissent” while joking about assassinating President Obama is “racist hate speech” that will get you visited by the FBI.

Aspies like to have the rules laid out clearly, neutrally and consistently. They/ we don’t like implications, winks and nods, and “It just is, okay?!” So you get someone like Ezra Levant (almost certainly an Aspie) asking why the Emperor has no clothes, why Canada’s censorship rules are applied differently to Christians and Muslims, and a lot of people regard him with distaste: he’s rude, he’s offensive, he’s loud, he’s rocking the boat, he “just doesn’t get it”.

Perhaps Section 13 could be struck down as discriminating on basis of a disability, do you think?

That is exactly correct!  I’ve been ranting on this for years!

*  * *

Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Code is the ‘hate speech’ section which has, lately, been applied to silence people with unpopular views.  The key bit of the wording is that a person is forbidden from communicating anything which could potentially give offense to someone or a group.  No, not ‘just anyone’ – only people who are members of ‘protected groups’.

In other words, it is illegal, in Canada, to communicate anything that might offend people, based on their sex, race, religion, disabilities, sexual orientation, and so on, or stigmatize them, or is likely to increase ‘general hate’ against them.

*  *  *

Now, let us look at  the diagnostic criteria for Asperger’s Syndrome (an Autism-spectrum disorder):

Aspies For Freedom (an Asperger’s support group) lists, among others:

  • Criterion A. Severe and sustained impairment in social interaction
  • Criterion C. The disturbance must cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

About.com tells us that

“The essential features of Asperger’s Disorder are severe and sustained impairment in social interaction…

“…  The disturbance must cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Dr. Leo Kanner, a psychiatrist at Hopkins and a recognized authority on Asperger, wrote in ‘Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry with Practical Neurology’ about ‘Aspergers’:

It is characterised by impairments in reciprocal social interaction and communication

I could go on, in a typically Aspie obsessive manner… but, you get the picture.  Aspies (people with Asperger’s Syndrome usually prefer the nomicker ‘Aspies’ – it is less cumbersome) have a neurological disorder, which prevents us from having ‘normal’ social interactions.

We cannot tell when we are boring you.

We cannot tell when what we are saying is offensive to you.

We cannot tell if people are so fed up with us, they are about to loose their patience and beat us to a bloody pulp, because we have just said something they consider ‘insensitive’ or ‘offensive’.

We think the rest of the world ought to get over themselves and their stupid emotionalism and its burdensome public display and grow up!  (And get some logic, while they’re at it.)

We also lack the ability to ‘believe’.

Oh, we can accept rules – and love to adhere to them scrupulously.  So, Aspies CAN follow religions.  We just can’t believe in them.

We can take some God(s)’s existence ‘as given’ or ‘pre-defined parameter’ – but not as an ‘article of faith’ to be ‘believed’.  There IS a difference.

Despite what some clinicians think, we CAN accept ‘alternate realities’ (make-believe) – as long as it is presented as a concept (not ‘truth’ – but a ‘different game’) and is internally self-consistent.  That  is why we love Spock (the first ‘real’ Aspie character on TV who was not a villain – at least, not intended to be perceived as a villain, even though his appearance followed an ‘evil-man’ archetype) and why we CAN accept alternate reality rules.

But we recognize them to be ‘non-real’.  And – naturally – we say so.  Especially when somebody is wrong and thinks it is ‘real’.

It is our responsibility to educate them!  To do any less would be insulting to them…

We are especially good at pointing out internal inconsistencies – within belief systems, ‘holy’ books (scriptures), the behaviour of clerics vs. the tenets of their faith and all kinds of things like that.  Good and persistent!

And THAT is why so many Aspies earn the wrath of religious people….. because we will never understand why it is OK to correct someone’s misconceptions regarding physic or mathematics, but not regarding bronze-age myths and demonstrable reality.

Actually – any age myths…

With our lack of social skills and inability to ‘take things on faith’ – both conditions are documented as being biologically based and not something we can just change because we want to – we are BOUND to offend a lot of people. Or, so I am told.  Especially with all that religious nonsense!  And I mean NON-SENSE!!!  As defined…

(Is this a good demonstration?  I hope so… I was trying to convey the understanding of our internal thought processes….)

I suppose it would be a fair parallel to describe Aspies as ‘offensiveness-deaf‘!  And, this disability is a well documented, recognized medical condition.

*  *  *

Ah – but our constitution states that no person shall be discriminated against on the grounds of a medical disability!

Would it be legal to pass a law that penalizes people for not standing when the National Anthem is played – even if they were deaf and did not hear it?  Or of they were a paraplegic or otherwise disabled and unable to stand?

Would passing such laws, which punish people because they have a disability, be tolerated if that disability were anything other than Asperger’s Syndrome?

NO!  IT WOULD NOT!

We would not tolerate such laws!  And, our constitution specifically forbids discrimination on these grounds!

Yet, Section 13(1) is a blatant and shameful discrimination against people who have a medical disability which prevents us from knowing when we are likely to ‘give offense’!!!

*  *  *

OK – this is where I tie it all together….bear with me, please, I’m almost there.

1.  Section 13(1) makes it illegal to communicate anything which ‘is likely to offend’ or stigmatize a group or individuals (on ‘protected grounds’), or expose someone to hate.

2.  One such ‘protected ground’ is ‘medical disability’.

3.  Asperger’s syndrome is a medical disability, whose defining characteristic is an inability to successfully socially interact with others:  in other words, rude and offensive behaviour is an invountary symptom (and even a diagnostic criterion) of this medical condition.  As such, Aspies cannot tell if they are ‘likely to offend’, just as deaf people cannot hear and react to sounds, or just like people cannot significantly change the amount of pigment in their skin!  By just existing, we are ‘likely to give offense’!

4.  Therefore, Section 13(1) makes it a criminal offense to live with this specific medical disability!

5.  By criminalizing our very existence, Section 13(1) seriously stigmatizes Aspies, simply because of how we were born! It is very likely that we, as an identifiable and protected group, will be stigmatized and we are likely to be exposed to hate, as a direct result of the existence of Section 13(1).

6.   However, Section 13(1) forbids anyone or anything to stigmatize a group on protected grounds, or expose anyone to hate – and having Asperger’s IS a ‘protected ground’!

7.  That is an internal inconsistency.

8.  Therefore, Section 13(1) is in contravention of itself.

Q.E.D.

    Posted in Aspergers, atheism, ignosticism, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 12 Comments »

    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 »

    Questions for Jennifer Lynch

    October 6, 2009 — xanthippa

    Thank you, Blazing Catfur and Jay Currie!

    Jennifer Lynch is the  face of the Medusa…the head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.  And, she will be called to answer some questions about her organization – and her own conduct – by a Parliamentary committee.  (Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn testified yesterday.)

    BCF and JC have been collecting questions to ask the Madamme Chief Commissar.

    Give them some!

    Here is what I’d ask:

    1.  Why did you not submit the receipts for your expenses in a timely manner?

    2.  What have you done to ensure that your travel expenses are, in these trying economic times, minimized?

    3.  Please, submit the evidence that you have researched the cost of accommodations in alternate, cheaper hotel while traveling on the taxpayer’s dollar.

    4.  What procedures have you put into place to ensure that travel and related expenses of other members of your organization are minimized?

    5.  Who, within your organization, oversees travel expenses by the CHRC staff and how do they ensure the costs are minimized?

    (OK – these are financial questions.  But, remember, they got Al Capone for tax evasion…)

    Give them some!

    Here’s where you can send the questions (these are the members of the Parliamentary Committee):

    Conservatives:

    Ed Fast – ed@edfast.ca , faste@parl.gc.ca

    Daniel Petit – PetitD@parl.gc.ca

    Rick Norlock – rick@ricknorlock.ca , Norlock.R@parl.gc.ca

    Rob Moore – MooreR@parl.gc.ca

    Stephen Woodworth – woodworth.s@parl.gc.ca

    Brent Rathgeber – rathgb1@parl.gc.ca , rathgb0@parl.gc.ca

    NDP:

    Joe Comartin – ComarJ@parl.gc.ca

    Bloc Quebecois

    Serge Ménard – MenarSe@parl.gc.ca

    Liberals:

    Brian Murphy – Murphy.B@parl.gc.ca

    Ujjal Dosanjh – Dosanu1a@parl.gc.ca , Dosanjh.U@parl.gc.ca

    Dominic LeBlanc – dominic.leblanc@nb.aibn.com , leblanc.d@parl.gc.ca

    Posted in opression, politics, science. Tags: , , . 4 Comments »

    Will we be complicit in the ‘honour killing’ of Rifqa Bary?

    September 18, 2009 — xanthippa

    Are we about to hand Fathima Rifqa Bary to the custity of people who swore to murder her?

    It would not be unprecedented…

    14-year-old Konerak Sinthasomphone escaped from Jeffrey Dahmer, but  the police officers handed the unfortunate boy back to the sadistic murderer, even while smelling the decomposing body of a previous victim…  The cops even laughed about the whole thing!

    Have we not learned anything?

    Rifqa Bary is a 17-year-old, all-American girl, an honour student, a cheerleader, and a battered child.  Perhaps it was her father’s violence towards her, perhaps it was something else.  The fact remains that Rifqa converted from Islam to Christianity….and, following phone calls and emails to the family from  their local Mosque, her father told her he must kill her to cleanse the family honour of her apostasy.

    Fearing for her life, Rifqa fled from her home in Columbus, Ohio, to Florida. She did all the ‘right’ things:  she removed herself from the most immediate danger and directly asked us – the society – to protect her.  The Florida authorities took charge of Rifqa and her ‘case’.

    Is she being taken seriously?  Or…

    Is she ‘just another rebellious teenager’ – as far as the very people who are supposed to protect her are concerned?

    Is she ‘yet another teen run-away’ who ‘ought to be returned home, into the custody of  her parents?

    Is she simply an ‘attention-seeking teen’ who ought to learn some respect and obey her parents’ rules?

    May be, may be not!

    With her life at stake, the ‘authorities’ ought to take great care to find out. That, however, does not seem likely…

    If you have not heard Rifqa’s story, it is documented here.  Here is a ‘short version‘ from ‘Atlas Shrugs‘ (her version has MANY links with deeper info).

    In a nutshell, in July 2009, the 17-year-old Rifqa got on a bus and fled to Florida.  Now, she is in foster care supervised by the Department of Children and Family in Florida   Juvenile Court Circuit Judge Daniel Dawson, who is presiding over Rifqa’s case, had ordered a report to assess just how much this 17-year-old apostate is in from her family and Mosque, before he decides  Rifqa’s fate.

    So far, not that bad.

    Except that…

    Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) has just released their report – the one which assesses the threat to Rifqa. And, the report is, to say the least, a curious piece of work which could actually endanger this young woman’s life!

    The FDLE report is, in my eyes, unexplicable.  Not only did they not interview most of the witnesses and people most close to Rifqa (whom they interrogated for hours, without her lawyer or any other representative present) and then concluded that there were no people who corroborated her story, not only did they disregard the facebook group which bears her name, and whose over a hundred members are openly calling for her death because she is an apostate…they did not even consider an incident which her father ADMITS TO!  They never asked about the incidents her mother admitted to!

    But, they respectfully interviewed CAIR (an Islamist organization with known ties to terrorist groups – and which is facing many charges of intimidation against moderate Muslims).  The FDLE even allowed CAIR to control their ‘investigation,’ ‘helping them choose’ whom to interview, and how!

    These *#$)(#%$ people actually refused to consider the tradition ‘honour killing’ or how it might relate to Rifqa and her current situation… as in, do her parents and their friends (and co-religionists, along with the prevailing views at the Mosque they take their guidance from) subscribe to the belief that they must kill Rifqa for rejecting Islam and becoming a Christian.

    Why?

    Quoting the report:

    “An investigation into any person, religious or social organization without a specific identifiable criminal predicate is inappropriate.”

    Pardon me?

    Is this what our society has been reduced to?

    Here is ‘Center for Security Policy’s’ review of the FDLE report – the FDLE report is included.

    Now, please, excuse me – I have to go shopping for a burka…


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

    Help an ex-Muslim! Please…

    September 15, 2009 — xanthippa

    Criss says it all:

    The petition is here.

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

    When ‘spokespeople’ tarnish the whole group…

    September 9, 2009 — xanthippa

    Yet again, a few ‘spokespeople’ claiming to represent a rich (in human qualities – not wealth!) and diverse community have done a great disservice to themselves and all the people they claim to speak for.  In one moment, they have erased the individuality of the members of their group, and chosen to cast them all in the role of extremists… all in the role of victims.  (I will not identify this specific incident until later on in the post, because it is essential that I explain my disgust with the behaviour in general, before focusing on the specific.)

    This happens so often, and in so varied groups, one could perhaps argue that it is one of the defining attributes of humanity.  This one, however, is as unhelpful and counterproductive as it is predictable.

    Why?

    Well, first, let’s consider who usually ‘speaks for a group’ – as an unofficial spokesperson:

    1. A professional communicator, who understands how to get their message across?
    2. A wise and respected person, who has the full backing of the ‘group’?
    3. A moderate, who gets along with everyone, whether members of ‘the group’ or other people, and works hard to make sure everyone understands all points, so there is no chance for a slight to arise from a misunderstanding?
    4. An extremist and/or someone who wants to manipulate people within the group into feeling like they are ‘under attack’ in order to gain some amount of manipulative control over them?

    Let’s consider them, one at a time:

    1.  A professional communicator, who understands how to get their message across

    Professional communicators are usually professionals, who cost a lot of money.  Therefore, they tend to be ‘official’ spokespeople, not ‘unofficial ones’ when it comes to ‘unorganized groups’.  Still, some sub-groups – which might wish to manipulate the rest of the ‘group’, might choose to hire professional communicators.  However, the message these professionals deliver is not in the interest of the larger group, but instead only serves whatever the purposes of the sub-group that hired it.  In other words, if the spokesperson IS a professional communicator, one must ask who hired him, and to what purpose.

    2.   A wise and respected person, who has the full backing of the ‘group’

    Well – these are usually called ‘official spokespeople’ – on the grounds that they actually have the ‘backing of the whole group’.  So, by definition, unofficial spokespeople do not fall into category #2.

    3.   A moderate, who gets along with everyone, whether members of ‘the group’ or other people, and works hard to make sure everyone understands all points, so there is no chance for a slight to arise from a misunderstanding

    Well, again, not likely.  Moderates usually do not have the desire – or feel the need to – speak out.  It is enough for them to be secure in who they are, because they know that real bigotry is the problem of the bigot and perceived bigotry is not worth bothering with.  There is, of course, an exception to this:  when even the moderates within the group feel threatened, they will speak out.

    However, that is not the situation I am attempting to address here:  it is an essential distinction!  When the whole of a group is truly threatened, then it is essential that the moderates are the ones who speak out.  So, how do we tell the situations apart?  It has been my experience that when moderates speak out, they speak for themselves – and they clearly state that they have no pretentions of speaking for everyone else.  They will share their experiences – and only by listening to their stories will one realize that it is not just this one individual who is affected, but other members of the community, too.  When people speak up and, before they even get to tell you what happened to them, personally, they start out by saying that ‘the group’ as a whole is being threatened, when they begin by claiming that they speak for ‘everyone’ – without having an ‘official spokesperson’ status – then, in my never-humble-opinion, one is justified in suspecting a manipulation.

    Which kind of brings me to #4:  An extremist and/or someone who wants to manipulate people within the group into feeling like they are ‘under attack’ in order to gain some amount of manipulative control over them ….

    Ah, yes…I think I’ve made this point already.

    Please, judge for yourself if in this instance, we are dealing with #1, 2, 3 or 4:

    An MP (Member of Parliament) sent (several versions of) a brochure to his constituents, now that the Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that Section 13(1) of our Human Rights Code conravenes the Canadian Constitution.  In that brochure, the MP criticized ‘radical Muslim voices’ who, in many peoples’ opinions, abused this section of the HR code.

    The key word here is ‘RADICAL’!

    He did not criticize Muslims, or even the majority of Muslims, or any such thing.  He clearly (and, if the reports are accurate, unequivocally) specified that it was the extremists whom he was referring to.

    This did not stop ‘unofficial spokespeople’ (though some claim to be official, since there is no external, universally accepted authority structure in Islam, it is not possible to actually have an ‘official spokesperson for all Muslims’ – by the very tenets of Islam!) from claiming that this MP had attacked ALL Muslim people!

    Take note:  this is an important distinction!

    The MP specified he was referring to a few extremist voices only.

    The ‘spokespeople’ claimed he had maligned ALL Muslims!

    Even a cursory application of logic makes it clear that these ‘spokespeople‘ are making the extravagant patently false claim that ALL MUSLIMS ARE EXTREMISTS!

    I’m sorry, but I do not believe that for a moment!

    More than just ‘believe’ – I KNOW it is not true!  One of my favourite cousins is a Muslima – and she is certainly not an extremist!  She is a wonderful person – I wish more people were like she is, because then more of us would get along without all these manipulations and ‘stuff’!

    These self-appointed loudmoths do NOT speak for her!  I know, because I asked her.  THEY did NOT!

    And, I want those ‘spokespeople’ to be found and dragged in front of the whole world community to answer for their slanderous misrepresentation of many, many excellent Canadians!

    It is THEY who is spreading hate and division and discord among us!

    It is high time they were held responsible for their evil deeds!

    H/T:  Blazing Catfur whose site now includes the brochres which triggered this ‘outrage’.

    Connie at FreeDominion has 6 pdf’s of the brochures.

    P.S.:  If you would like to say a few supportive words to the MP, his address is Anders.R@parl.gc.ca

    Posted in debate, freedoms, human nature, opression, politics, religion. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

    ‘Death by Committee’: British socialized medicare hits a new low

    September 4, 2009 — xanthippa

    Leave it to the Brits, with their wonderful sense of ‘understatement’, to give the expression ‘death by committee’ a very real and unpleasant meaning!

    As slowly but surely becomes true of every ‘nationalized’ or ‘universal, government-run’ medical system, there is not enough ‘medicine’ (space, equipment, staff, meds…) to go serve everyone in Britain (once known as ‘Great Britain’ – now, they are too ‘politically correct’ to call themselves ‘Great’).

    It would appear that British National Health Service has found a nifty new way to ration their medical care:  kill the ‘old people’!

    Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, was among a group of medical experts who wrote to the Telegraph warning that patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives.

    Another article on the same topics says:

    Under NHS guidance introduced in a number of hospitals to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.

    But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warned in their letter.

    So, if a patient is judged to be ‘ready’, all their medical care is taken away and they are euthanized.  Simple – and it might just free up enough beds to get rid of those pesky statistics about babies being born in hospital hallways, or even toilets…even turning those horny women away seems to cause bad press.

    Yeah….

    In my never-humble-opinion, people in the UK are being denied medical care, universally, from ‘cradle to grave’!

    So, how does this ‘death by committee’ work?

    Well, there is this agency, NICE (National Institute of Coordinated Experiments…or was that National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence…or is there a difference?)   which nicely approved this ‘ticker box’ form (you know, there are questions, boxes to ‘tick off’ and the number of ‘ticks’ and the spots they are in will ‘objectively’ determine next course of action).  The ‘medical care team’ – and this team apparently MUST include A doctor…so, the rest are, presumably, administrators and bureaucrats – will ‘tick off’ the boxes.

    Notice that this ‘medical care team’ does not include the patient, or any representatives, friends or family of the patient.  This is purely to ensure the ‘ticks’ are made in an objective manner and no mushy sentimentality would come in the way of ‘efficiency’ and ‘excellence’.  In other words, these ‘death committees’ (or ‘death boards, as they have also been called) only produce ‘professional ticks’!

    If the ‘ticks’ add up a certain way, the patient gets taken off medicine, denied food and water (apparently, this happens even if the patient is able to feed him/her self), and given a ‘parting shot’ of drugs that kill him/her over the next 24 hours.

    Attention is paid to every detail!  For example, these drugs also conveniently sedate the patient as part of the killing process:  so no protest is possible and any signs that the patient is getting better are masked.  It’s ‘neater’ this way.  Dead patients hardly ever complain, you know…

    Now, now, there is no point getting all ticked off about it!

    They have this form here, which proves that you were supposed to have died already, and you are just taking too long mucking about!  So, it’s not like anyone can blame them, is it?  They are just helping you do the right thing…

    In conclusion, I’d like to leave you with this short documentary film:

    Posted in opression, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , . 3 Comments »
    « Older posts
    Newer posts »