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 »

    Stephen Harper got to meet Yo-Yo Ma!

    October 5, 2009 — xanthippa

    WOW!

    WOW!

    Stephen Harper actually got to meet THE GREAT Yo-Yo Ma!!!  What a lucky man!

    OK – so my first reaction to this was a little bit atypical:  I am not so good at ‘typical reactions’…  And, my second reaction was:  what a waste of such a good singing voice – why didn’t Steven Harper pick a good song?

    Just for his performance, I actually sat through and listened to a WHOLE Beatles song!   I guess there is a first time for everything… and, it DID have Yo-Yo Ma in it!  Even if it WAS a Beatles’ song.

    For those not ‘in-the-loop’:  Laureen Harper is the ‘hands-on’ Honorary Chair of the NAC (National Arts Centre) Gala.  This year’s headliner was the legendary Yo-Yo Ma – and the event raised over half-a-million dollars for the National Youth and Education Trust.  And, with Mr. Ma’s help, Mrs. Harper convinced her husband to be a surprise performer at this year’s show!  But, there is a little more going on in the background…

    Last year, Mrs. Harper’s husband (our Prime Minister) tried to re-distribute the ‘arts funding’ in two major ways:

    As a pre-Olympic preparation thing, he tried to give a greater piece of the overall ‘arts-funding-pie’ to British Columbia.  This earned him the wrath of Quebec artistic elites who claimed that by giving them a smaller piece of the pie, even temporarily, Prime Minister Harper was attempting to murder Quebec culture and that he would singlehandedly destroy it…  Oh, the screeching was unbearable – and it did cost the Conservatives much support in Quebec.  (Frankly, I did not think one single Anglophone was capable of destroying Quebec culture, but the Quebec arts intelligentsia obviously have a higher opinion of Steven Harper!)

    Also, he tried to shift a little bit of the funding away from supporting well-established artists and into education programs which would make arts accessible for all kids.

    The horror!

    Take from the professional leeches (anyone who thinks ‘government grants’ are ‘owed’ to them, because of their ‘calling’ as ‘an artist’ is a professional leech) and give to kids instead!  How will the elites remain elites, if just about everyone will understand art?!?!?  Unthinkable!

    Predictably, the elitist and snobby elements from within the arts community (the loud ones – who rely on government grants for a living) started to say some nasty things about Mr. Harper.  He, in turn, lost his temper and said something about taxpayer money going to support ‘a bunch of rich people at galas’ not resonating with ‘real, hardworking people’….

    They ate him alive.

    The meaning of what he said -and tried to do – was lost in the rhetoric.  That whole ‘taxpayer money going to support’ bit was dropped…and the ‘galas’ part was played up…I mean, why bother with substance when one can get a snappy headline?  And the bit about bringing art education to kids….well, that was interpreted as ‘not supporting the arts’!

    And here he was, this past Saturday:  performing, live, on stage with Yo-Yo Ma!

    Steven Harper was revealed as a performing artist himself.  And a good one – even if he came across as a little shy….  But then again – how many of us would have the guts to get up and perform live, in front of a few thousand people?

    Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Harper, for showing one can love art – and still be a ‘real’ person, too!

    Posted in human nature, politics. Tags: , , , . Leave a Comment »

    What should Jack Layton do?

    September 29, 2009 — xanthippa

    For those of you who are not Canadian political junkies, this may still be of interest.  The outcome may not affect you, but this is still a fun mental exercise!

    This is the situation:  there are currently 4 major political parties in the Canadian Parliament:  Consevatives, Liberals, Bloc Qebecois (Bloc) and New Democrats NDP). 

    The Consrevatives have a minority government.  This means that they may be in power, but do not have enough votes in the House of Commons to pass legislation unless one of the three opposition parties supports them (votes ‘with’ them).  Until now, they were kept in power by the Liberals (not a coalition, just vote-by-vote thing) and opposed by the Bloc and Jack Layton’s NDP.

    Unsurprisingly, none of opposition parties are not too keen to support the government they need to oppose to self-define… but, at times, they have to. 

    If they do not, and the government is defeated in a ‘confidence vote’, the most likely outcome will be an election.  So, unless they are ready (financially and poliltically) to fight an election, or if they actually support the government’s specific piece of legislation which is being voted on, at least one of the opposition parties must vote ‘with’ the government.

    Aside:  here, in Canada, it is unusual for Members of Parliament (MPs) to vote their conscience.  The party leaders have great control over their members, so voting against one’s party position is extremely rare.  That is why the parties each holds a block of votes.

    If an election were held today, the most likely outcome would be that Conservatives would win, and perhaps they would even win a majority government.

    The recently annointed Liberal leader’s popularity is vaning:  the more people learn about him, the less they like or trust him… and that also holds true within his own party.  As a matter of fact, Mr. Ignatieff’s ineptness has just started a major power-struggle within the influential Quebec wing of the party!

    Now, with his party in serious internal turmoil, Mr. Ignatieff has introduced a ‘confidence vote’:  if the Conservative government gets nobody to ‘vote with them’, we will likely go to an election. 

    The NDP leader, Jack Layton, has announced he is likely to support the government because it would be irresponsible to cause an election now, since it would kill a lot of legislation he helped shape and which would help to those most hurt by the economic downturn would be much delayed.  In my opinion, that is the responsible thing to do. 

    But – is it the best thing ‘politically’?  For Mr. Layton, that is…

    After all, Mr. Ignatieff has just blown up the Quebec wing of his party: anything could happen there – and that ‘anything’ could even result in Ignatieff’s fall from the Liberal throne.  The Liberals are certainly not ‘election ready’ any more.

    When the Liberals loose votes, the ‘beneficiaries’ are usually the New Democrats (and Bloc Quebecois, in Quebec).  So, if there is an election now, with the Liberals having a minor ‘civil war’ within their party, Jack Layton’s party would stand to win more seats!  His power would increase!

    And, the Conservatives could win a majority government, too – and thus removing from him the influence he now enjoys…

    So, what should Jack Layton do?

    Vote ‘with’ the government, and get the help out to the people who need it?  But by supporting the government, he’ll anger some of his supporters who’d rather chew their own leg off than vote ‘with’ the Conservatives on anything!

    Vote ‘against’ the government, trigger an election?  He would likely win many seats away from the Liberals, giving the NDP a stronger voice – but perhaps also handing the Conservatives a majority victory?  But opposing them now, after all the statements he made about needing to get help out to all the people quickly, that would make him look opportunistic and loose him popular support!

    What should he do?

    I don’t know.  But, I know what I would do if I were in Jack Layton’s shoes:  I would instruct all my NDP MPs to ‘vote their conscience’!

    It is unheard of for a party leader to permit his MPs to vote however they choose themselves on a ‘confidence motion’.  It would be a very, very bold move on Jack Layton’s part.  And, it would make it completely impossible to predict how the outcome of the ‘confidence motion’ would come out…

    It seems to me to be such an obvious answer! 

    Jack Layton would then be able to vote for the legislation he helped shape – but he would not be using his influence to ‘prop up’ the government….  He would not be alienating the more radical elements within his party, all the while building loyalty in his MPs by showing he respects his MPs and their judgment, whichever way they choose to vote! 

    At the same time, permitting his MPs to ‘vote their conscience’ would be an incredibly democratic thing to do – something the Conservatives, in theory, all support!  And, of course, it would force the Conservatives to seek support from individual NDP MPs – and this would necessarily increase the NDP’s overall impact!

    In addition, permitting everyone to exercise their free will would show him to be a secure in his leadership and not threatened by MPs who think for themselves… 

    I do not see the down side for Jack Layton in this!

    Posted in politics. Tags: . 1 Comment »

    Diaspora and our ‘bronze-age-brains’

    September 23, 2009 — xanthippa

    There are two common-use meanings for this term:  diaspora and Diaspora.

    The ‘little d’ diaspora refers to any (more-or-less) peaceful migration or immigration or general re-settlement of a socially cohesive group of people with a well-defined social identity into an already populated area, with no intention of integrating into the host society.  The ‘capital D’ diaspora refers to one specific ‘little d’ diaspora:  the expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem by the Romans and their resultant scattering around the World.

    At this point, I am only focusing on ‘little d’ diaspora.

    This ‘diaspora’ is a curious concept:  a group of people who share a common ancestry/language/culture/religion – such as a tribe, or a clan, settle in an area already inhabited by ‘different people’.  Once there, they do not attempt to gain the land by conquest:  they either legally purchase it or, if the population density is low, they simply settle there and eventually claim squatter’s rights. So, there is no war.

    The ‘newcomers’ are usually not perceived as hostile, so the people in the ‘host culture’ do not harbour hostility towards them.  Or, at least, not particularly so.  At the beginning.

    But, we, humans, have come to be who we are by following a certain path of social evolution.

    Each one of us is, first and foremost, an individual.  And, even in the most collectivistic of human societies, there is an acknowledgement (or a lament) that we are, indeed, individuals.

    This fact that each of us is an individual does not, in any way, change that we are also very social:  we nurture our young and have long learned that pooling our resources can help us survive and succeed.  We don’t always agree on how much of our resources ought to be pooled, and how this pooling ought to be accomplished – but that is a different matter.

    Different human societies have indeed reached different states of balance (or, imbalance) between the ‘individual’ and ‘society’.  This is only to be expected, because humans are such a prolific organism that we thrive – or, at least, survive – in greatly varying regions of the world.  These produce very different pressures (stresses) on the different human groups and their social rules that they govern themselves by.  Thus, very different attitudes, moral codes and social rules had developed.

    Many people I have talked to seem to think that there is some sort of a ‘universal’ set of rules of ‘morality’ that all people subscribe to.  I am sorry to disappoint these people:  there is no such thing.  It is only because most cultures which had, historically, interacted with each other had been ones which were also in physical proximity:  thus, both a similar set of environmental pressures and long-term contact (such as trade) between the cultures served to spread ideas, learn of each other’s attitudes – in short, served as a ‘normalizing’ pressure on the development of these cultures.  This then gives an ‘appearance’ of ‘universal’ concepts of ‘right and wrong’.

    Thus, this ‘universality’ is no more than an appearance.  What worked for one group of people in one specific time and place became their set of ‘right and wrong’.  Sure, if they learned a rule that seemed to produce better results, they usually found a way of incorporating this new rule into their society.  (Often, this was in the form of a new deity – which is why so many monotheistic cultures seem to freeze in their ‘moral’ development… but THAT is a completely different post!)

    Isolated cultures are  prime examples of just how different ‘right and wrong’ is, depending on the pressures on the society.  Most ‘mainland’ cultures prospered if there were more offspring:  the more babies born, the more were likely to survive and become productive members of their clan, the better the clan did.  So, in most of these cultures, homosexuality (actually, most activities which would divert natural sex-drive away from baby-production) was forbidden and became considered ‘immoral’.  I remember my Anthropology prof telling us about an isolated culture on a small South Pacific island, where the overpopulation was the stress which drove the development of the society.  On this island, homosexuality was not only permitted, it was considered to be morally superior to heterosexuality!  As a matter of fact, heterosexual sex was taboo for over 300 days of the year…

    The same is true of ‘murder’ – the concept of ‘killing another human being’ as ‘bad’ or ‘immoral’ is actually not all that common… as I have ranted on before.

    As any physician will readily confirm, our brains are not any different from those of our bronze-age ancestors.  Sure, when we have better nutrition and vitamins, when we grow up mostly free of diseases, our brains develop into a much fuller potential then they would otherwise.  But not all our ancestors were malnurished or ill….  Our brains are have the very same physical characteristics, the same ‘blueprint’, if you will, that the brains of our bronze-age-ancestors did.

    What differentiates us from our ancestors is our culture – our learning and our social attitudes.  In other words, ‘culture’ is what ‘defines us’ as ‘us’.

    As opposed to ‘them’.

    And this ‘them’ concept is extremely important to the way our ‘bronze-age blueprint-of-a-brain’:  because in our bronze-age past, ‘them’ could never really be trusted!  The simple fact that ‘they’ were not ‘us’, but ‘they’ meant that ‘they’ did not have a vested interest in ‘our’ survival.

    That is why so many ‘ kings/chieftains’ would marry a daughter of a king/chieftain with whom they had just reached a peace-treaty:  the ‘father-king’ would have a vested interest in the survival of his grand-children, just as the ‘bride-groom-king’ has a vested interest in the survival of his own children.  This marriage and its ‘blood-bond’ reduces the ‘they’ factor and makes both sides see the other as at least a little bit more part of ‘us’.

    Which brings me back to the ‘diaspora’:  the very point of a diaspora is that the newcomers do not become part of the ‘us’ which surrounds them. By the very definition of the word ‘diaspora’, these newcomers have a fully formed cultural (which includes religious) identity of their own and are not willing to compromise it in any way – especially through mingling of the blood!

    In other words, the newcomers – by their choice – do not become ‘us’ to their neighbours/hosts.

    This results in both sides being unable to fully trust each other:  blame our ‘bronze-aged brains’!

    Posted in human nature, immigrants, perceptions, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

    Heroes are no longer welcome in our society

    September 23, 2009 — xanthippa

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

    Let me set the stage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    John Robson: ‘They mean what they say’

    September 18, 2009 — xanthippa

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

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

    John Robson is, yet again, right.

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

    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 »
    « Older posts
    Newer posts »