Thunderf00t: ‘Amenakin, Censorin’ for Islam’

For those who are not frequent users of YouTube or are simply unaware of this particular issue, Thunderf00t is one of the most prominent members of the informal YouTube atheist community.  As a scientist, he has consistently criticized theocratic dogma, dispelling their claims with science and reason.

Not surprisingly, there has been some friction between him (and other YouTube-active atheists) and theocrats, usually of the monolatric bend.  Usually, this friction has been limited to exchanges of videos and comments – which is really quite entertaining, regardless of where one falls opinion-wise:  it’s like a fine boxing match, but fought with ideas and words.  Ray Comfort, a prominent Christian theist, has even hosted long one-on-one debates with Thunderf00t which both of them then posted on YouTube.

What I am trying to say is that yes, there is an ongoing battling of ideas – and while tempers may rise, both sides are capable of civilized discourse.

Or, rather, most members of both sides…

…because there are people who are using the DMCA to make claims that are intended to force YouTube to shut down channels of people whose views they disagree with.  This is a sort of a mini-SLAPP suit…

Which is what this video is about:

Rick Dagenais: the troll at my door

During elections, it is the custom for the various candidates vying for our votes to knock on the doors of the constituents in the riding where they are hoping to win the seat, assure the voters that you care about each and every one of them – personally – and, hopefully, convince the voters that they are worthy of their trust.

I have experienced this many times – politicians of all political stripes and polka-dots have had a discussion with me at my front door, from federal, provincial and municipal levels.  This has led to interesting discussions (though usually, not particularly long ones as the candidates are eager to hit as many homes as possible in the little time available to them) and even when we do not see eye-to-eye politically, the politicians have always been on their best and most affable.  After all, you never know when a neighbour is listening and might be impresses….

With the current Ontario election in its last week, I was not particularly surprised to see a political candidate on my doorstep, hoping to convince me to give him my vote.  What shocked me was that almost from the first moment, the dude trolled me!

The only thing I can think of was that it was a cold and rainy evening when Ric Dagenais of the NDP  happened upon my abode – so his demeanour might have been a reflection of the elements… because I cannot imagine why on Earth anyone hoping to convince me to vote for them would behave like a such a small-minded troll.  Truly…

What came out of this guy’s mouth was astonishing.  I find it difficult to understand what possessed him to behave as he did, to say the stuff he said.  It made him sound, well, uneducated, slightly unhinged and patronizing all at the same time.

Let me expand on that.

He started ‘on script’ and asked if I had considered voting for the NDP.  I said that while still undecided, I was seriously considering the Freedom Party of Ontario.

Mr. Dagenais’s eyes glazed over as he said:  “Who?”

It took him a bit, but he finally remembered who that was.  Then he said:  “They are running a candidate in this riding?”

When I assured him that they were (Marco Rossi), he reluctantly agreed that yeah, he guessed they were.

So far, he has sounded just a bit grumpy and a more than a little ignorant – he could not even remember who was competing against him for the seat in the Ontario legislature.

Then he asked me why I was considering the Freedom Party.

I told him my honest opinion:  that we needed to move towards smaller government and that I thought the Freedom Party was the best choice for people who do not like big government.

This seemed to shock him:  “You think the NDP does not stand for small government?”

At first, I thought he wassimply  jesting – facing a voter with insurmountable ideological differences from him, that he would depart on a light note.  I was wrong.  He was serious…

Then he began to explain to me that the NDP was the ONLY party that would guarantee me ‘smaller government’.   With a straight face, he was honestly trying to convince me that NDP was the only logical choice for people who want to reduce the size of the government.

Now – let’s do a little recap.  I was aware of more candidates in this riding than he, as one of the candidates, was.  This should obviously put me into a category of ‘at least somewhat informed voter’ – or, at least, not an absolute political ignoramus who is unaware of the NDP’s policies and their inherent incompatibility with ‘small government’.  OK – I am blond…and since my left shoulder has still not fully healed, my pony tail was not well centred or actually styled, just sort of sraped back off my face.  And, when he knocked on my door, I was in the process of cleaning my house and dressed in  my ‘grubbies’.  So, I probably looked ditsy and grubby at once. Still, treating me like an idiot by offering me such transparent lies, in such a patronizing manner, was a bit of a strain on me.

In order to re-focus the conversation, I tried to explain that I thought the government should be much smaller than the NDP suggests – that governments should really not provide any services beyond the military, policing and judiciary.  Pretty standard stuff – right?  Mr. Dagenais had a very weird reaction to this:  he accused me of wanting to live in a police state!

He got quite heated, too, leaning forward and pointing a finger to deliver the message.  Needless to say, I was not prepared for such an irrational statement, nor the passion with which it was delivered.  I still don’t know if Mr. Dagenais was just trolling (I hope so) or if he is truly so ill informed that he thinks that wanting less government truly means wanting to establish a police state.

I tried to explain it – I really did.  I good faith and everything.  But his claims kept getting more and more irrational, at one point claiming that if citizens were granted property rights, then multinational corporations would build poisonous factories across the street from  my house and kill my children!

Yes, he actually went that far.

The thing he said were so irrational that I asked him to stop with the ‘straw men’ arguments because it was silly, but I don’t think he even heard me.  But he seemed like he was just getting started…  He actually shouted that I would build a Nazi state and demanded to know if that was what I really wanted!

Rather than stand there and continue to be insulted, I asked him to please leave.  It took him several sentences to register what I said, then he looked up at me in shocked surprise – so I repeated my request.  He said he guessed he’d better – and stalked off…

The encounter had left me rather baffled.  I am grateful to Ric Dagenais and all the candidates for participating in the political process:  without people willing to devote their time and energy and running for public office, our system would simply cease to function.  People of all political opinions and views ought to have someone to vote for who represents their views.  Without people like Ric Dagenais, this would not be possible – so I am sad to have had such a discouraging encounter with him.

Still, I hope this was just stress coming through, that I had unknowingly pushed some buttons that led him to troll me…and that he truly does not believe that giving property rights to citizens would lead to multinational corporations killing all the children and reducing the size of the government would lead to a Nazi-style police state.

Dan Hannan: Illegitimate Europe

“When a political system departs from the rule of law, it delegitimizes itself.  A polity that is ruling arbitrarily, that is not following the rulebook, forfeits the allegiance of its citizens.”

Indeed!

Ontario Freedom Party – looking better by the minute

While our southern neighbours keep wondering if their votes count as they think they count, here, in Ontario, it is getting harder and harder to figure out where to park one’s vote in the quickly upcoming election.

The Liberals are corrupt and Dalton McGuinty will only say something that’s true by accident.

The Conservatives seem hell bent on bringing in publicly funded faith-based schools (that means religious apartheid in schools, in case you missed it) – the very issue on which the Conservatives crashed and burned during the last election.

The NDP wants to finish the job of bankrupting Ontario that McGuinty has so effectively started:  on a per capita basis, Ontario – the one-time industrial engine of Canada – is now worse off than California.  The NDP’s cure – spend more!!!

The Pirate Party – despite its drawbacks,  a party  which would push for a balance in consumer electronic rights – is not in the race.

The Family Coalition Party  wants to legislate morality – not a sound principle, even were you to agree with their morals completely.

The role for Libertarians is to be a voice of reason – not to govern.

The Greens – yeah, pull the other one.  People naive enough to get suckered in by the ACC hysteria are not stable enough to deserve anyone’s vote.

Then I saw these TV ads:

Perhaps I’m going to look at this Freedom Party a little closer.

encounterbooks: Debunking the Palestinian Lie

A few thoughts about a ‘two-state solution’

Tomorrow, Palestinian representatives will speak at the UN in order to seek recognition of themselves as a state.

I’ll be extremely blunt about this:  the Palestinian {founding document, whatever the accurate term is, of its ruling body} states unequivocally that it seeks a military destruction of Israel.

Israel is a member state of the UN.  (Why, I really don’t know – goodness knows they are the UN’s favourite whipping boy…)

It is surreal that the UN would entertain a speech – much less seriously consider for membership – a ‘state’ whose duly elected government’s openly stated goal is the military destruction of one of its own members!!!

I cannot express just how ridiculous this is.

(And no – I am not indifferent to the suffering of the Palestinian children, I just think that Jordan is the one to blame, not Israel, as it was Jordan who confiscated much of the land dedicated to the creation of Palestine and then kicked the Arabs who now self-identify as ‘Palestinians’ out and denied them citizenship rights. So, let’s not go down that particular proverbial garden path…)

Anyhow, while thinking about this, I came across this fascinating post about a ‘two-state solution’.  Enjoy.

Will Ontario Conservatives loose a second election on the same issue that lost them the last one?

Four years ago, Ontario Conservatives were hopeful:  after the inept mismanagement and corruption of the McGuinty regime, it seemed that a Conservative majority was assured.

Until, of course, then Conservative leader John Tory snatched defeat from the jaws of victory!  The issue that crashed the Conservatives was Tory’s promise of public funding of religious schools.  His assertion then was that  funding faith-based schools is the only way to regulate them.

Really.

He actually stood up and said this – and did not see what was wrong with this thinking.

For obvious reasons, this single stance by the Conservatives brought us another 4 years of McGuinty.  And, during this 4 year term, Mc.Guinty expanded religion in publicly funded schools; both Catholic and Public (which are ostensibly secular). Now, we see sectarian and gender segregation in tax-payer funded schools in oder for clerics to instruct the students and lead them in prayer.

And no wonder – McGuinty is sleeping with an activist for religious schools!  Quite literally – he is married to her…

But, surely, the Ontario Conservatives have learned from this, no?

They have a spanking new leader, Tim Hudak, whose parents are said to be teachers:  between that and the Tory disaster last election, surely Hudak will not be so stupid as to run on a platform of taxpayer-funded faith-based education, right?

May be, may be not…  According to this interview by Brian Lilley, it is not so certain.

France bans blocking streets by praying

Most people who pray do so privately or in ‘houses of worship’.  This is just fine.  (I may consider ‘prayer’ to be immoral, but I would never condone a government legislating morality.)

For many years, Muslims have blocked the streets of Paris by praying in the streets during Friday prayers.  It has been widely reported that people drive from far and wide to intentionally choke up Paris as a form of bullying:  we can stop your city whenever we want to – so we will.  Muslim leaders simply assert that there are insufficient houses of worship for them, so they are forced to pray in the streets…

Today, there just may be a solution.

The French authorities have offered the Muslim community a large place to pray – and followed up this ‘carrot’ with a stout ‘stick:  they have passed a new law which forbids Muslims from blocking the streets by praying. This is being done in the name of protecting the principle of secularism.

Interesting…

Of course, it raises a lot of questions – most of them very uncomfortable.

While I understand the peoblem of aggressive, in-you-face-praying (and, let’s face it:  all the ‘faiths’, religious and secular, are guilty of this in different circumstances), I am not certain if the French solutuion is the correct way to go.

Certainly, France is not the only place where Muslim communities are using ‘in-your-face praying’ to intimidate non-Muslim citizens and bully political authorities by closing streets during Friday prayers.

Certainly, this practice must not be tolerated.

But solving it by providing government buildings to be used as houses of prayer seems to me to be a cure which does more harm than good!

Sure, the ‘problem’ is ‘out of sight’.  Commerce can go on and the populace is not directly intimidated.

But at what cost?

Neatly and quickly, the burden of providing a ‘house of prayer’ for Muslims has been shifted from Muslims to The State!

What happened to that principle of secularism?

With the French State buildings becoming Mosques, where is the secular principle of separation of State and Mosque?

Perhaps I am simply unaware of the details of the deal – there might be some provisions for temporary use, like the types of permits for Santa Claus parades.  If so, I am happy to be wrong.

However, I do think that accepting – even on a temporary basis – the responsibility for housing praying members of any religion in order to get them to obey the laws of the land is an unreasonable accommodation and a serious error of principles.

The law states that blocking streets is illegal.  It is the government’s obligation to apply the laws equally and consistently – without regard to the lawbreakers’ religion, ethnicity or ‘culture’.  The laws must be blind to these particulars:  that is what equality before the law means!

Therefore, the laws should have been applied, fully and equally, from the beginning.

Instead, local streets had been permitted to be closed, often using private security guards from the Mosques to intimidate non-Muslims out of the area occupied by the in-your-face worshippers.  That should never have been permitted.

[If I were the ruler of the universe, I’d start by fining the lawbreakrs, then, if necessary, escalate to other measures:

  • playing loud music in the streets to encourage people who wish to pray to raise the money to build themselves their own house of worship (to pray on their own dime and not the public one)
  • deploying canine units to patrol the streets and ensuring that the sidewalks adjacent to the Mosque and all other buildings in the area are clear for obvious safety reasons (the presence of the dogs would invalidate the prayers of those outside, so they would truly have no reason to clog the streets)
  • and if that failed, the rules that apply to any other unruly and illegal public gathering would be put into action.]

(Aside – I have definite ideas about how much governments should be permitted to regulate public gatherings and I am not changing thses views.  All I am asserting is that whatever the rules are, they must be applied equally to all.  If the rules are bad, we should change them.  Until then…)

Of course, France is not the only country with this particular method of in-your-face prayer is disrupting public peace and order.  However flawed their approach and however bad its longterm results may be, at least in France, they have the guts to name the problem and are trying to do something to solve it.

Hey – September 14th was ‘Climate Parody Day’!

Sorry – I did not realize that September 14th was ‘Climate Parody Day’!!!

If I had, I would have done something, like, witty…or something…

Perhaps a cartoon of Al Gore in a turban shaped like an ‘oveheating Earth’ or David Suzuki holding the IPCC report (any version – they are all corrupt) and threatening to burn (or behead) any heretic who does not treat it with sufficient reverence….

I guess you’ll have to pop over to The Reference Frame to read up on today’s festivities!

Of course, for a daily dose of climate skepticism, you can head over to Donna Laframboise’s ‘NoFrakkingConsensus’.  (Her book on the topic will be ready soon!)

 

Which constitutional article was that?

This lunatic is, unfortunately, a voice of influence in parts of the Arab world.  Here, he claims – with a straight face – that America’s founding fathers tried to introduce an article to the US Constitution to ban Jews from US land.

Really.

Of course, there are other voices, too – they just get drowned out much of the time.

Which is a shame – these following people do make sense:

And there are Imams who do condemn violence in their sermons – yet they do not always find a receptive audience.  This makes it so much more important that we speak up about them and help their voices be heard.