Warren Kinsella’s new low

February 23, 2009 — xanthippa

Blazing Catfur has the whole story...

Warren Kinsella (of the ‘women politicians would be better off baking cookies’ and ‘let’s go to Chinatown for some barbecued cat and rice’ fame) does not like Kathy Shaidle.

While Mr. Kinsella is pro-censorship, Ms. Shaidle is a leader in the fight to preserve our freedom of speech.

While Mr. Kinsella is smooth, political insider, Ms. Shaidle is brash, outspoken commentator/poet.

While Mr. Kinsella is among the forces trying to build politically correct society, Ms. Shaidle wants people to say what they mean, clearly and unambiguously, using words that do not hide their real meaning – even if these words are colourful and perhaps even offensive to some.

While Mr. Kinsella is tries to silence all the voices he does not like, Ms. Shaidle actually helps people be heard – regardless of their message.

Mr. Kinsella is sympathetic to the Palestinian people – even at the cost of supporting the Palestinian terrorists which oppress the Palestinial people more than anyone else ever had.  Ms. Shaidle defends the right of Israel to exist and openly (and colourfully) says that terrorists are not nice people.

While Mr. Kinsella is someone who sues the people he disagrees with, Ms. Shaidle is someone who had been/is being sued by Kinsella for disagreeing with him.

Perhaps there is an underlying pattern here…

When Ms. Shaidle was invited to appear on TVO’s Agenda, to comment on ‘The Atheist Bus’ campaign, Mr, Kinsella went, well, a little too far.  When the host of the show, Steve Paikin, refused to ‘uninvite’ Ms. Shaidle after Mr. Kinsella’s first demand that they do so, Mr. Kinsella threatened ‘there will be consequences’ because ‘he wrote to the Minister of Education about it’.

Had Mr. Kinsella been an ‘ordinary citizen’, this would be an empty threat.  But, he is not:  he is the Liberal spin doctor who helped get this Minister elected, and as such, the Minister ‘owes him’ – on one level or another.  This little fact gives the whole threat a brand new twist – and a very sinister one, at that.

Here, I should declare my personal bias:  I respect Kathy Shaidle greatly, I admit I also quite like her – but I cannot say I agree with her views on Atheism.  I most vociferously disagree with some of the comments she made during the show.  This can be seen from my post on this last week.   I know Ms. Shaidle and I also do not share the same views on Christianity:  she had bought me lunch last summer when I popped into Toronto, the topic came up (briefly), and we walked away respecting each other, even if not agreeing with each other.  Nonetheless… that is not really the point here.

The point is that is Mr. Kinsella’s threat is not an empty one – if his action will really result in the Minister of Education delivering those ‘consequences’ against TVO, The Agenda and Mr. Paikin – then we have even more to fear.

Why not drop Kathleen Wynne, the Ontario Minister of Education, a line?  You can tell her what you think about Mr. Kinsella’s threat here:  kwynne.mpp@liberal.ola.org

Update: It looks like the Canadian Jewish Congress has just decided to no longer associate with (employ) Kinsella…. don’t know the details there is a non-disclosure agreement in place.

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

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

Anti-Islamist coalition

February 20, 2009 — xanthippa

A new blog has entered ‘The ‘Sphere’!

Anti-Islamist Coalition

Anti-Islamist Coalition

Thanks to Babazee for creating this logo!

And, just to avoid any possible confusion, let me re-state this once again:

Islam is not the same as Islamism.

Islam is a religion, which is practiced in peace by millions of wonderful people.  I know and love some of them, and I certainly respect many of them.

Islamism is not the same sort of thing at all.  It is a political movement, intent on world domination, which just happens to be dressed up in the guise of Islam. These types of political movements have plagued humanity for thousands of years – and they have usually sought to legitimize themselves by wrapping themselves in the respectability of a ‘religious movement.  It just happens that this particular political movement is abusing Islam for its ends!

Certainly, Islamists believe themselves to be following Islam – which is why they cite it as a justification for their crimes.  And many Islamists truly believe what they are doing is following their god’s will – which is what makes this such a dangerous combination.

Which is what makes it that same old …

Go ahead and hate your neighbour,

Go ahead and cheat your friend,

Do it in the name of Heaven Islam,

So you can justify it in the end …

And THAT is why Islamism must be opposed.

It is an insult to Islam, and a deadly threat to the rest of us.  Never forget what happened to the ‘Mountain People’…  If you don’t know, then, listen, children, to the story that was recorded long ago…

(Please, take a special note of how the ‘Valley People’ reacted when invited in to share, as equals…  Of couse, were I the composer, I would have the ‘Treasure’ say ‘Freedom of Speech and Equal Rights for ALL’!  In my never-humble-opinion, without these, there can be no true peace!  But, that might be too big a mouthful for a song…)

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

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

Ottawa bans ‘Atheist bus ads’

February 19, 2009 — xanthippa

I am shocked at this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would that be so bad?

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

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

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

Would THAT be so offensive?

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

How ‘offensive’!!!

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

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

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

Carleton University introduces new course: ‘How to rig an election 101’

February 18, 2009 — xanthippa

Warning:  In order to comply with the CRTC  (CBSC) ruling on a similar situation, please note that the following post may contain sarcasm and may employ facetiousness as a method of criticism.

Press release by Carleton University Faculty of Social Engineering:

For immediate publication:

Following the failure of the progressive students in their attempt to only support research into diseases which are politically correct, it has been deemed necessary to introduce more effective training in social engineering into the curriculum of Carleton University.  We are therefore proud to announce that, the Carleton University Faculty of Social Engineering is introducing a new course, titled ‘How to rig an election’.

The course number is ‘CUFSE 101’ and will be open to all students deemed ‘intrinsically sufficiently progressive’ following an extensive interview process.  If there is sufficient demand, higher-level courses will be designed to follow.

CUFSE 101 Course Curriculum:

This course has been specifically designed to teach students how to ensure that our governments – at all levels – are sufficiently progressive and promote the development of diverse and inclusive society.  In order that proper government policies are developed, it is necessary to teach future progressive candidates how to ensure they will be successfully elected.

To train students in the required skills, the course will focus on the following electoral techniques:

1.  Long term strategic planning:

  • ensuring that the body which supervises the election is stuffed staffed with progressive individuals.  This step must be undertaken by the progressive elements who have been elected, in preparation for future election.
  • ensuring that the wording of electoral rules is sufficiently vague and obscure so that, if necessary, it can be interpreted in completely unexpected ways.  Particular attention will be given to teaching the proper language which will not give any future non-progressive candidates clues as to how these rules can be applied.

2.  Short term measures:

Specialized linguistic training will focus on

  • skills in interpreting electoral rules so as to penalize or disqualify those candidates who have won, but who are undesirable due to their lack of intuitive progressive thought.
  • design of ‘election results’ web page which will obscure the number of votes won by undesirable candidates, or be similarly conducive towards positive reactions to progressive candidates.
  • phrasing of ‘electoral board rulings’ against undesirable candidates in  a way that will raise the least journalistic interest and minimize any attention to the techniques employed to achieve the desirable ends
  • how to engage popular – but not appropriate – candidates in conversations calculated to make them loose temper.  Any resulting ‘strong response’ will be a useful weapon against such a candidate, while an absence of a ‘strong response’ will indicate the best methodology for marginalizing said candidate.

In preparation of this course, a pilot project has trained some progressive candidates in the 2009 Carleton University Student Association (CUSA) elections in these skills.  As can be seen from the CUSA 2009 election results, the pilot was successful beyond expectations!

Points of particular success:

  • Within 4 hours of winning the largest number of votes, the undesirable candidate for CUSA president, Bruce Kyereh-Addo, was notified that he has been disqualified as a candidate, and therefore did not win.
  • To ensure that the ‘progressive candidate’ won, the pilot study graduates outdid themselves in also disqualifying the other non-desirable candidate for CUSA presidency, Cameron MacIntosh.  Thus, Erik Halliwell, the progressive candidate, was the only candidate who was not disqualified, ensuring his election to the post of ‘President of CUSA’.
  • Only anecdotal evidence exists that the electoral board was ‘stuffed’ with Haliwell’s friends, making it easy to dismiss any charges of ‘partiality’ as ‘hearsay’.  The praise here falls on the previous CUSA councillors:  having failed to stop ‘Shinerama’ fundraising to go to support a research into a non-inclusive disease which “has been recently revealed to only affect white people, and primarily men”, they have now redeemed themselves in ensuring that the right people staffed the CUSA elections office – and, more importantly, they have not left tangible trails.
  • The CUSA election rules are so well written, the disqualified and/or ‘ruled against’ candidates were completely unaware of how the election rules could be applied.   This has left them unprepared and unable to effectively defend themselves.  Kyereh-Addo is quoted as saying:  “This is just ridiculous. I can’t believe what’s going on right now.”
  • Had this been a credit-course, rather than a pilot, high marks would have been awarded to the person(s) who devised the successful application of the rule that ‘unapproved Facebook messages sent by their supporters’ – without the candidates’ knowledge or approval’ – are a misconduct’ which earns the candidate(s) a ‘ruling against them’.
  • Another sign of brilliance among the ‘election rule drafters’ is that it is a breech of the rules if there are any posters/promotional materials – or electronic messages, approved or not, by the candidates or their supporters – which promote more than one candidate – or which are posted in ‘non-approved areas’!  Simply brilliant!
  • The ‘linguistic training’ also scored a major success when an electoral board officer managed to involve Mr. Kyereh-Addo in a conversation so frustrating, Mr. Kyereh-Addo lost his temper and punched a wall.  As this was on the grounds of Carleton University, the electoral board promptly charged him with “damaging university property in a physically violent manner”:  and thus supplied the grounds for his disqualification of Mr. Kyereh-Addo as a candidate.  Kudos!
  • Much praise also goes to the pilot programme graduate who managed to handle the press coverage of the event, as can be seen in the ‘Charlatan’ (campus newspaper) coverage of the election.  There is not hint of ‘scandal’, ‘electoral fraud’ or even ‘serious controversy’.  This is success beyond expectation.  When reading the article, please note the successful spin which does not even identify that Mr. Kyereh-Addo simply ‘punched a wall’, but leaves the reader with the impression that he had indulged in wanton destruction of University property.  Well spun!
  • The ‘election results’ webpage:  brilliant!  Conveys the ‘information’ without letting people know what happened, does not even make the appropriate candidate look like a looser!  Not including the ‘total number of votes cast’ per category on the website hides the truth without telling a lie!!!  Faultless!!! Simply brilliant!

The above notes are only a few of the examples of the many successful applications learned by the progressive students in the pilot study on the basis of which ‘CUFSE 101’ was developed.  The Carleton University Faculty of Social Engineering is confident this success will lead to an establishment of a large number of courses in this area in the future.

The instructor for this specific course has not been named yet, though among the leading candidates are such role models as Warren Kinsella, Richard Warman and our own Matthew Crosier.

For any additional information, please, contact the information officer of CUFSE.

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

Posted in education, freedoms, Humour, language, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 5 Comments »

The ‘fatwa’ against Lowell Green

February 13, 2009 — xanthippa

Struggling through the ‘brainfog’ of the flu, I have not made my post about what had happened to Lowell Green as clear and understandable as it should have been.  Please, accept my apologies.

There is some clarification needed…

The Canadian ‘airwaves’ (radio and television) are regulated.  That means that in order to broadcast a signal, a person – or, more typically, an organization – has to purchase the ‘right’ to broadcast from the Canadian government (though, this is the standard in most countries).  The Canadian government has created an organization to deal with this:  the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission), which bills itself as ‘an independent public authority in charge of regulating and supervising Canadian broadcasting and telecommunications’.

Aside:  the government ‘regulation’ of any news-media or any private industry is dangerous.  While it is important to assign ‘proper’ bandwidth to different broadcasters – so that their signals do not overlay each other, and so on, there is a serious danger, creating a body which is not ‘answerable’ to anyone but itself to govern this process is not just ludicrous, it actively endangers our society’s freedom of expression.  If a government body can, at will (and without needing to provide justification), approve or deny ‘bandwidth’ to a private company, there is a very large ‘opening’ for abuse.  Will this ‘body/commission’ approve licences to anyone who criticizes them?  How about anyone who criticizes ‘bureaucratic-abuse within licensing bodies’???  What if a special ‘interest group’/’political faction’ gains control of this body?  The list of potential abuses is endless…. think about it!!!  No ‘government’ and no ‘bureaucratic body’ should EVER have this kind of power over a society!

Back to the story…

So, if any person hears or sees anything on the radio or TV that they do not like, they are free to complain.  That, I have no problem with.  What happens next – …

The CRTC, upon receiving a complaint, has a number of options.  It can dismiss it – no more action done.  Or it can investigate it itself – as it has done on many occassions.  Or, as it most often the case, it ‘passes’ the complaint onto the ‘Canadian Broadcast Standards Council’ (CBSC).

The CBSC is a ‘self-regulating’ ‘professional association’ of all people/organizations who wish to ‘broadcast’ in Canada.  Canadian broadcasters MUST belong to it in order to even apply for a broadcasting license.

Now, ‘professional association’s are not necessarily a bad thing.  This is a deep tradition, rooted in the ‘craft guilds’ of the medieval times:  a ‘guild’ would test any ‘apprentice’, to make sure they had ‘mastered the craft’, before he could hang a shingle in front of his hut and practice his craft. It  was a ‘self-policing, quality control’ type thing – and, historically, there was a role for it. Of course, it was also used to limit competition…too many ‘guild-members’ meant not enough demand  – and therefore income – for any one of the members!  So, ‘strict’ – and ‘unquestionable’ – regulations were put into place…

However, modernization and the necessary ‘scaling up’ of these ‘guilds’ and ‘professional associations’ did not always go smoothly.  Just as unionized ‘closed shop’ workplaces became legally forbidden from employing people who were unwilling to join (or rejected by) a workplace union, ‘professional associations’ have become a similar ‘closed-shop’ thing among many professions, regardless of the employer.

Thus, if the Ontario Medical Association refuses to grant an accredited MD membership (the reasons could be simple as ‘having reported more than 3 factual adverse vaccine reaction in children/infant patients per calendar year’ – according to an ex-Ontario MD), such an MD is stripped of their OMA membership –  and thereafter legally forbidden from practicing medicine within Ontario.  Similarly, lawyers (and other professionals) have a ‘self-regulating body’:  if these ‘bodies’ refuse to let you into their ‘country club’, your law-school graduation diploma (etc.) is only worth its decorative value…  You may hang it on your wall, but you are not allowed to practice your profession.

While it is a good idea in principle, this ‘self-regulation’ of professionals, it is deeply flawed in practice…

It gives a group of people the extrajudicial power to decide who may – or may not – practice a ‘profession’.  While this is excellent for ‘quality control’, it is also – rather glaringly – a method of discrediting anyone who might ’embarrass the orthodoxy’ of the profession by holding independent points of view, or by exposing corruption within the organization, etc…. the possibilities are endless.  In short, this is the perfect body to filter out (without legal recourse) anyone who does not ‘play ball’, ‘adhere to orthodoxy’, is ‘not-one-of-the-good-old-boys-network’…. with no legal recourse for those who are ‘rejected’ or ‘censored’ or ‘censured’….

Well, it would appear that the CRTC does – often – pass complaints it receives about TV or radio coverage/broadcast on to this extrajudicial, non-transparent body called the CBSC…

Even the broadcasters themselves – according to what I hear on the airwaves – are now aware of how the ‘decisionmakers’ within the CBSC are selected.  Yet, their decisions are binding on anyone who wishes to continue to remain  a member – and thus have a licence to broadcast.  Transparency of process?  Please….

In this particular case, Mr. Green was not allowed to know who (or, if there were several ‘whos’) complained about the broadcast he made.  He was not allowed to know what the specifics of the complaint were.  And, he was not allowed to present any defense on his behalf – personal, professional or legal.

So, do you think this ‘professional organization’ stands up for its members? Will it be the ‘buffer’ to protect them from petty government censorship or bureaucratic interference?  Will it protect the professional ideals of its membership:  freedom of speech, the right to deliver news and opinions, no matter how diverse?   Will it shield its members from government or bureaucratic censorship?

Or, has this ‘professional association’ become an instrument of censorship itself – not answerable to anyone, with no legal recourse for appealing unjust decisions?  Just an organization with the unquestionable ability to silence those whose opinions it does not find politically useful?  An organization that has the ability to silence anyone who broadcasts any ‘news or opinion’ that it does not approve of – without any responsibility to the populace whose news/opinion sources it limits?

Please, you be the judge:  here is the decision in the Lowell Green case… sounds to me like the CBSC has issued a fatwa against Mr. Green!

One more question I have:  the document itself states that the ‘decision’ was reached in October of 2008.  So, why was it not announced until February, 2009?  Everything else aside – what is the reason for this delay?

I’m sorry – I just don’t get it.

Freedom of Speech – good bye!

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

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

February 10, 2009 — xanthippa

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

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

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

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

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

It’s not about Lowell Green.

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

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

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

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

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

Some society we are becoming!

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

I LOVE that line:  “SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT!”

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

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

Shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater

February 4, 2009 — xanthippa

Just about everybody agrees that there ‘ought to’ be some limits on ‘Free Speech’.

One of the ‘classic’ examples is ‘Yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater‘: it is reasonable to limit Freedom of Speech to prevent someone from shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater, thus causing a panic during which people could be hurt or even killed.  Most people agree that this is a reasonable limit.

So, what if the theater IS on fire?

Should people be forbidden to raise a warning in a theater that is actually burning?

When first formulated, this ‘reasonable limit’ on Freedom of Speech was phrased ‘it is reasonable to limit Freedom of Speech to prevent someone from falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater’.

In our eagerness to apply this limit on Freedom of Speech, we have forgotten the ‘reality check’ bit!  Truth has now become irrelevant.

We have become extremely adept at prosecuting people who are figuratively ‘shouting fire’ by criticizing the failures of our current social policies which ghettoize citizens based on cultural or religious grounds and create multiple classes of citizenship.  Any time a person speaks up to criticize social policies which contain principles of ‘culture’ or ‘religion’, or the faulty implementation of these social policies, or their negative impacts – we prosecute them for ‘Shouting “Fire!”‘

Everyone gets all righteously indignant, points fingers at them and condemns them.  These people get dragged through the mud (the courts) and, too often, they get convicted of ‘shouting fire’.  After all, they did!

Our courts – both legal, kangaroo and the ‘court of public opinion’ – have forgotten that  ‘shouting “Fire!”‘ in a burning theater is not only acceptable, it saves lives!  In fact, shutting up the very people who give a true warning – that is what puts us all in serious danger.

Geert Wilders …

… Ezra Levant …

… Mark Steyn …

… Sussane Winter …

… Ayaan Hirsi Ali …

… Kathy Shaidle …

… and many, many more.  The list is getting dangerously long.

FIRE!!!

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

Posted in freedoms, opression, perceptions, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . 4 Comments »

Aisha

February 3, 2009 — xanthippa
Aisha

Aisha

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

Geert Wilders: NOT a ‘perfect poster boy’…SO?

January 30, 2009 — xanthippa

While reading the reactions to ‘The Geert Wildres case’, I have been saddened, dismayed and disheartened….

Why?

Because so many people who – in principle -think they support Freedom of Speech are critical of supporting of Geert Wilders in particular!

I have read criticism in many places, to the effect that if we ‘want to fight for Freedom of Speech’, we ‘should find a better poster-boy’….

People who express these sentiments are missing the point!!!

Let’s go back to basic human psychology…

Whom does a bully pick on first???

The successful bully will first pick on the strongest opponent who does not have allies ready to come to his/her defense!

This is a very basic psychological principle, taught to us both in school (if one were inclined to study psychology or anthropology/sociology or even history or business skills) and also in fiction – good fiction (including ‘science fiction’ and ‘historical novels’, ‘where’ most good ‘fiction’ writer are).  From Waltari to Card, from Čapek to Asimov.  The lesson is clear.  One would expect that most intelligent people would have learned it by now…

It is precisely because Geert Wilders is not likable, it is precisely because he is on the fringes of society, that he is one of the ‘first lines of victims’ of this new form of totalitarianism which hides its ugly face beneath a pretense of ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘accommodation’.  Not aware of his new totalitarianism?  Please, look around!  (Or read Kathy Shaidle’s book, ‘Tyrany of the Nice’.)

More and more invasive internet censorship….

More and more government regulation of our information streams…

More and more interference with mainstream media (through not using ‘organized means’)….and more and more media activism…

Add to this the growing debts by ‘Western’ governments – and the reality of who holds the bonds on these debts….

Include the Western obsession with the intentionally manipulated ‘Global Warming‘ agenda – with the billions paid in ‘carbon indulgencies’ by European countries….  (Along with unsupportable social systems, do you think sucking billions out of the European economies could have played a tiny role in the economic meltdown?)

And, last but not least, these latest ‘economic bailout packages’ with ‘strings attached’ give governments way too much control over industries (not that the European countries have not been racing down this road already…).  Whenever big business and big governments get all nice and cozy with each other, the rest of us need to worry.

This little peek around should dispel any last doubts that ALL our governments are steadily moving down the road towards totalitarianism….perhaps a little slower in Canada and the US than in Europe, but, slow and steady….

But, back to my main point:

Totalitarian governments are always bullies – it’s part of the definition.  That is why they follow classical bully-psychology:  beat up the biggest guy nobody will come and help because he’s a jerk.  When they want to establish – set a precedent – that they have the power to control something, totalitarian governments will pick on their strongest opponent who is least likable.  Once the precedent is set, they can then pick on their other opponents, one at a time. Please, notice the pattern!

In the words of Martin Niemöller:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Have we really forgotten the lesson?

For those who have, or who have failed to learn it, let me say it once again: IT’S NOT ABOUT GEERT WILDERS.  IT’S ABOUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH – AND ABOUT POLITICIANS USURPING THE POWER TO SILENCE US.

Don’t let them.  Please!

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

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

Will all Muslims be caught in the backlash against Islamists?

January 28, 2009 — xanthippa

This post can stand on its own, but it is a loose continuation of my rant from yesterday:  Actions and reactions

In my never-humble-opinion, we are dealing with several things which overlap and muddle all discussions when we discuss ‘freedom of speech’, Islam and the now inevitable clash between the two.  Here is my little breakdown:

1. Islamists – those for whom Islam is not just a religion, but a political movement bent on dominating the world (it is wrong to dismiss the things people say they believe – and want to do, even if it sounds outrageous to our sensibilities).

2. Muslims – these are people for whom Islam is a religion.  It includes people for whom it is nothing more than their personal faith and who wish nothing more than to live in a free, democratic society.  It also includes all the Islamists.

3. Islamists make claims and demands on behalf of all Muslims, whether all Muslims agree with them or not.

4. Making claims and demands is perfectly OK. I know I make enough of them!

5. Legislators are satisfying and accommodating these claims and demands.  This is wrong.

Even if the Islamists DID have a mandate to speak for all Muslims (which they do NOT) it is unwise to grant any demands for special privileges to any group within a democracy, because this sets up official ‘classes of citizenship’. (Do we really want to follow the example of Malaysia, where there is one ministry to deal with the rights of non-Muslim women and then a secretariate to deal with the rights and welfare of only Muslim women, with no agencies permitted to participate in both?)

Also, accommodating the Islamists sets them up as ‘community leaders’ and this special status empowers the individual Islamist leaders.  It physically, financially (as government programs for the community are often administered through them) and psychologically gives them the ability to control most of the Muslims in their community.  Not only is very unfair to those moderate Muslims who want to enjoy democracy, it also, in a very real way, creates a parallel governance structure which is independent of the national government and free to pursue its own goals (which are often not compatible with the national government’s goals of maintaining terittorial sovereignity, and so on.)  

6. By setting Muslims apart from society, and giving them a special, privileged status (real or perceived), a strong resentment against all members of this perceived special group will necessarily happen.  That is human nature – people resent being treated (even if this is just a false perception) as second-class citizens, and, if they feel unable to change the governance structure which instituted this inequity, they will turn their resentment against the privileged group.   This is dangerous.

I am in no way saying this is right, or should be happening.  Rather, I am lamenting that human nature dictates that this is inevitable.

Let us look at what is happening in Europe now. No, let’s not dwell on the players: that is minutia. Let us examine the bigger forces behind the action….

The European Union (EU) has adopted many of the ‘multicultural’ attitudes from the UN.  The UN has, over and over, accommodated lobbying from the Organization of Islamic Conference to accord special status to religions in general and to Islam in particular.  And, regardless of the fact that the Western society is deeply rooted in the European renaissance – whose very existence began by criticizing religion and removing blasphemy from the criminal code… the EU has re-criminalized blasphemy.

In Holland, Geert Wilders, a sitting MP, is criminally charged. The prosecution charged him with making anti-Muslim statements. Wilders claimed he made true, supportable statements and quoted Muslim leaders. Wilders won, the charges get thrown out of court. The prosecution appealed. The appeals court – which over-rules the lower court in every way – ruled (on the day after President Obama’s inoguration – so the mainstream media focus would be elsewere) that the charges should not have been dropped and that the politician must face prosecution in that lower court because he is, in the appeals court’s opinion, guilty and must be punished.

You don’t have to be an accomplished jurist to understand the situation here. The lower court was told by its boss that this guy must stand trial because he is guilty.  So, they have to try him and find him guilty. Even if they do not, the appeals court will over-rule them.  Do you think there is even a tiny possibility this can be an impartial trial?

In Austria, Sussane Winter, a sitting MP, was actually convicted of ‘insulting Islam’.  24,000 Euros in penalties (I wonder what her court costs were in addition to the fine) and a suspended 3 month prison term. Her statements may have been phrased differently, yet the substance of what she said is in complete agreement with what the leading Muslim scholars are saying.

If re-criminalizing blasphemy is not going to plunge Europe into another era of ‘Dark Ages’, then what I found out while digging about on this definitely will!

The story comes from Belgium (and, yes, it does make on recount the Monty Python skit about the contest for the most insulting thing to call a Belgian…).

There, only a few years ago, some very, very strange stuff was happening indeed.

First, I must declare my political bias here – I deplore separatist parties. Frankly, I think it is wrong for a party to be in Parliament, if its main goal is to break up the state. Yet, if this party’s representatives are elected into parliament, I would never prevent them from representing their electorate. In this case, subverting the will of the electorate would be a greater wrong.

OK

In Belgiun, there is was a separatist party of an ethnic minority. This party was – from what I have read – not too nice. But, what happened to it – that is even more ‘not nice’. It would appear that the Belgian Parliament actually passed some laws whose sole purpose it was to make this minority party illegal.

Scary?

Not as scary as what followed…

The party ‘cleaned up’ – at least, on the outside, changed its name (slightly) and is now growing in popularity.

GROWING IN POPULARITY!

Is this the beginning of the backlash?

And if it is, will ALL Muslims be caught up in it, not just the Islamists???  I certainly hope not!!!

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

Posted in freedoms, illusions, opression, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »
« Older posts
Newer posts »