What an evening!

March 21, 2009 — xanthippa

Tonight (OK, so by the ‘clock convention’, it was ‘last night’ – but the sun has not yet risen when I write this, so, to my ‘regimented mind’, this is ‘tonight’) was awesome!

The Neeje Foundation put on an excellent ‘do’!

And, while I would usually avoid (like the plague) an organization whose name and mission statement appears to be as misandristic as this one appears to be.  Yet, the ‘panel’ – as well as the moderator – were irresistable!

While I knew one ‘ought to’ expect brilliance from Tarek Fatah (he is one of my heroes!!!) – and Barbara Kay is no lightweight (metaphorically speaking), either – the whole panel was most awesome!!!

And, I must admit, the topics on which they spoke (and what the panelists said about it) were very relevant:  both in the realms of freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the separation of the mosque (church) and state, but also in the fact that both the female panelists addressed (and lamented) the denigration and disenfranchisement of males in our society!

Since so many awesome and brilliant bloggers (and journalists, too) were there (I sat with Kathy Shaidle – she, too, is one of my heroes!!!), I fully expect that there will be most awesome accounts of what was said tonight, written by people more focused and better at actually writing than I could ever aspire to, very, very soon!

Let me just make some simple observations of my own…not necessarily of what was said, but also of what I made of some of the ‘connections’.  Please, note that the following is my construct – I am not quoting the panelists and I do not want to pretend they said the following ‘stuff’ – this is just my interpretation and musings which are the results of my thoughts in response to what was said tonight…  In other words, my conjecture, this should not reflect negatively on anyone else but me….

We are all aware that in many Islamic countries, women have the legal worth or 1/2 that of a man:  from legal testimony to other aspects of life.  Some of the most Islamist countries legally regard women as 1/2-human:  on par with a boy-child, as far as the legal system is concerned.

Now, this is a very contentious issue:  back in the time of Muhammad – in the region of the world where he lived – to be recognized as 1/2-human was a MAJOR step forward in women’s rights!  And, while I have met Muslims who have ‘frozen’ this interpretation of the status of women in Islam at 1/2 that of a man’s status, I have also met Muslim men who have shown that the eventual ‘goal’ of Muhammad was ‘full equality’ of the sexes – he just had to start somewhere!  And, these Muslims insist that the message of Muhammad was NOT to ‘freeze’ the status of women at 1/2-a-human status, but that by ‘taking the first step’, Muhammad was ordering all Muslims to work towards an eventual equality of the sexes.

OK – so this is NOT the interpretation many Islamists are atuned to.  Granted.  But…

Now, I would like to jump to the ‘other part’ of tonight’s presentation:  the minimization and denigration of the importance of the role of ‘father’ and ‘husband-for-life’….  We all know the popular culture is guilty of this – and the panelists provided some very thought-provoking examples, too.

So, this got me thinking….

What happens if a young man is exposed to BOTH messages???

What happens if he is bombarded with the very palpable social message that he is ‘not necessary’ and that he is ‘weighing down’ his beloved and preventing her from achieving ‘true happiness’ through her own denial for the need of his companionship…..AND he is ALSO bombarded by the message that in the most radicalized forms of Islam, the male (husband, father) is not only an integral part of the family – he RULES it?

Would this combination of ‘denial’ on the one hand, and the exaggeration on the other, have a profound impact on Muslim youths???  Could it not be the very vehicle through which their radicalization could be achieved?

I don’t pretend to have the answers…

In fact, it is rather late at night – following a busy and thought provoking evening.  Yet, if you have ideas of how this combination of social pressures might affect our young people, I would love to hear from you!

UPDATE: Deborah Gyapong has a much better post on what was actually presented and discussed by the panelists at the event.  And, she took pictures!

Posted in freedoms, politics, religion. Tags: , , , , , . 9 Comments »

Pat Condell: ‘Free speech is sacred’

March 20, 2009 — xanthippa

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

Divide and Censor

March 14, 2009 — xanthippa

The internet has succeeded in breaking down borders:  political (to some extent) and geographical – with great success.  Paradoxically, it is precisely this success that has created new types of borders.

These ‘virtual borders’ are now between various ‘virtual communities’ which have sprung up around specific fields of interest.

These communities may not be physical, in the old-fashioned sense of communities which get together in one room, yet they are very real communities: rich and vibrant within themselves.  However, there is very little interaction between most of the ‘online communities’.  And, the interaction between these various groups is pretty non-existent.  After all, when there is no reason to interact – why would they?

Yet, this is also our ‘Achille’s heel’ which allows us to be manipulated…

The very fact that there are so many people on the internet, that there are so many different ‘groups’ and ‘communities’ means that we cannot really ‘absorb’ them all into ‘our world’.  Our brains are used to only interacting with a certain number of people (groups) – anything outside of that, we can only conceive of in terms of ‘labels’ and ‘stereotypes’.

(I have gone on and on about this phenomenon in my series of posts on ‘scaling up communities’:  the whole ‘monkeysphere’/’Dunbar’s number thing… the reason why one death is a ‘tragedy’ while a million deaths is a ‘statistic’.)

This is not a bad thing in itself – it is simply the natural way our brain operates.

However, it means that the ‘online community’ is not really one ‘online community’:  rather, it is a mosaic of many, many communities, divided by the strongest border there is:  the border of ‘non interest’

How easy it then becomes for those who wold like to ‘divide and censor’ to manipulate these stereotypes, in order to strip us of our rights, one ‘virtual community’ at a time!!!

Please, consider the following:  for ‘non-techie’ types, what does the phrase ‘peer to peer network’ bring to mind?  Or the name ‘Bit-Torrents’?  Or ‘Pirate Bay’?

Unless I am terribly mistaken, this will make most non-techies think of ‘stealing movies‘:  people who abuse the internet to steal ‘content’ and make it difficult for everyone else.

Yet, my husband and his brother use this method to transmit our family photos to each other:  this way, if our server ever ‘blows up’, we have backups at his house, and vice versa.

My son likes to download ‘public domain’ (i.e. no payment required) games and programming tools, using Bit Torrnets.  No laws are being broken – to the contrary:  many of these people are working hard to improve the internet experience for all of us – free of charge to everybody!

And, there are actually legitimate businesses which use the ‘Bit Torrent’ technology for legitimate, legal, copyright-upholding transactions.

If the terms ‘peer to peer’ and ‘Bit Torrents’ DID make you have a dismissive – or even more negative – reaction, then YOU have been a victim of some wonderful ‘spin’ designed to ‘divide and censor’!!!

And, that does not even take into consideration what happened with ‘Pirate Bay’:  this company was operating WITHIN THE LAW!  Yet, the US movie industry did not like what they were doing:  so, they ‘influenced’ the US lawmakers, who ‘influenced’ the Swedish government, who – despite the advice of its own lawyers that the company is not breaking any laws – Swedish or international – the Swedish government ORDERED A POLICE RAID on the company’s business and siezed its assetts!!!

How is that even possible?

Yet, most ‘online communities’ think this is ‘just kids stealing movies’ – why loose sleep over it?

WHY?

Because it sets precedents, that’s why!!!

In my never-humble-opinion, I have found that most ‘online communities’ outside the ‘dedicated techies’ just could not care about the issues of ‘Bit Torrents’ and ‘channel choking’!

On the other hand…

I have as yet to meet ‘dedicated techies’ – on or off-line – who pay much attention to the ‘Free Speechers’!!!  Yeah, a bunch of people, going on about court cases and nazis – so what?  Instead, they try to figure out how to technically circumvent the latest form of censorship of their channels…

Then there are the people who are fighting the ‘Creeping Sharia/Anti-Islamists’ – they do, to some extent, overlap with the ‘Free Speechers’.  But, not totally.  They show little interest in the curbing of free speech, if it does not involve Islamists – come on, be honest!  And the Free Speechers do support the ‘Creeping Sharia/Anti-Islamists’ to a great extent – especially when it comes to the suppression of free speech on the topic of Islamist atrocities….

I suggest that the overlap between these two groups is so great because they are currently both threatened from similar sources.  And, I suggest that the ‘techies’ do not overlap with these two groups because the danger to them is coming from a ‘completely different direction’!

But, is it???

I suggest to you that it is NOT.

I know, I am not doing a good job of expressing here what I am trying to say.  I have re-written this at least 5 times, and it is getting worse, not better….  I feel like my ‘focus’ is slipping away as I try to make my explanations understandable – while when I gloss over the explanations and focus on my main point, the whole thing sounds hollow, because the explanations are too shallow to make much sense…

So, please, let me try to speak more plainly….  I’ll go to point form – then, whatever needs to be covered deeper, please, comment on and I will do my best to expand on it.

1.  We can only enjoy our level of online freedom (which translates into practical freedom in ‘off-line’ life) if the internet remains ‘free’ (NOT monetarily – just as in ‘not censored’)

2.  Freedom of Speech is constantly being attacked in our society… several completely different guises and excuses

3.  The ‘ human rights’ component:  the ‘Free Speechers/Anti-Islamists’ are aware of this one
– The UN submission to ‘Blasphemy laws’ (and their desire to force all of its member nations to comply with these)
– The ‘Human Rights Commissions’ and their thought police, political correctness busybodies…
– The EU’s manipulation… even legalizing pedophelia under the guise of ‘tolerance’ -Lisbon treaty… mandatory…
– Can you say ‘Geert Wilders’?

4.  The ‘commercial/IP rights’ component:
– Powerful lobbies from entertainment AND soft&hardware makers are succeeding in reducing ‘consumer rights’
– ‘Fair use’ is more and more limited – companies have the right for more and more intrusive ‘monitoring’
– ‘Consumer privacy’ is being legislated away

5.  The ‘community protection’ component
– Under the guise of ‘community protection’, more and more privacy is being legislated away
– More and more intrusive methods of monitoring are being implemented: ostensibly to protect kids from pedophelia (!!!)
– ‘Accussation’ of something triggers penalties as if one were found ‘guilty’, to stop them ‘doing harm’ IF they were guilty…
– And, this falls loosely into this ‘community protection’ – but we are talking about the ‘environmental fascism’ movement,  which is also pushing for more intrusive ‘monitoring and compliance’ for ‘stuff’ in order to ‘protect’ – yet which is also practicing censorship in a very real way…  Personally, I think these are eco-statists, who are undermining the health of our environment by attempting to ‘freeze it’ in its current state – but that is a different rant.  Yet, they ARE a very real part of this ‘censorship’ puzzle…

To sum it up:  this is a bit of a ‘picer move’ happening.  No, I don’t think there is a wide-ranging conspiracy thingy happening! Yet, the effects of each of these separate forces are in the same directions, and are supportive of each other. Sort of like wawes, that build upon each other, rising in amplitude as one is superimposed over the other….until it sweeps all notions of ‘Freedom of Speech’ out to sea!!!

Because there IS a connection:  the GOVERNMENT is the connection.  It is our government which controls the laws on how ‘human rights’ are – or are not – observed.  And, it is the government who passes the ‘consumer’ laws.  AND, it is the government which REGULATES the industries:  and, any industry ‘actor’ which would not ‘comply’ with government regulation will loose its license to do business…while compliance with the government policies in a highly regulated marketplace usually equals (or comes close to) a monopoly for the company doing the complying…

All the ‘threads’ lead back to the same place… givning our governments grweater and greater control over every aspect of our lives.  And, while I think most democracies are not ‘intentionally evil’, I AM very suspicious of the bureaucracies which run the governments…  I have seen too many high-level bureaucrats who are much too skilled at handling the elected governments…

So, what we need to do is to get all these diverse groups which would be affected by the end of the internet as we know it (and as I have written about in my last post), and begin comparing notes.  Because, people may not always be ‘smart’, but we are always ‘clever:  those who would oppress – whether for ideological or commercial reasons – there are laws which give someone (government, business – whatever) an ability to oppress, people will ALWAYS find the maximum possible way to do the oppressing.

That is just human nature…

So, we need to seriously begin comparing notes! Not to dismiss each other, because of the ‘labels’ applied to the different online communities by those who would like to eliminate us!  Because, if we stay divided, each of us will only see a bit of the picture – and none of us will build a sufficient defense…if that were even possible!

I suppose one could call it a case of ‘DIVIDE AND CENSOR’!

And, perhaps, we need to begin to build an alternative to the internet:  something where there will not be centralized ‘providers’ who can be contrlolled by governments (and thus become tools of censorship) – yet, which would connect us all, the way the internet does now.  A sort of an ‘ungerground internet’, if you please… a SUBNET!  I don’t know HOW, but knowing we must beging to think about it is a start!

Sorry to have rambled on so long….and for sounding so ‘preachy’.  Perhaps it’s my Cassandra complex that’s kicking in.  It’s just that – I can see it happening!

And I don’t know how to fix it… and it really, really frightens me!

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, religion, science, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

Is it time to abolish the UN?

March 11, 2009 — xanthippa

This year, the UN plans to make its ‘Blasphemy Resolution’ BINDING on ALL ITS MEMBER STATES!!!!!!!!!

When the League of Nations became irrelevant, it was abolished.

For those of you cursed with a ‘recent’ North American education, here is a very brief explanation:

Following ‘The Great War’ (WWI), people decided that wars were a bad thing that should – and could – be prevented.  So, they set up this organization whose purpose was to do exactly that by providing a supranational governance structure and a forum for a negotiated conflict resolution.  They called it the League of Nations.

Promptly, the new ‘world government’ set about defining The Rights of Man, and other unarguably worthy things.  Collectivists of the world unite, and all that…

Yet, the League of Nations was singularly bad at actually accomplishing any of the things it had claimed it wanted to do.  For example, when the LoN tried to give a stern talking to the likes of Mussolini and Hitler, Mussolini told them that ‘human rights’ don’t apply to ‘Ethiopians’ because they are ‘not fully human’ (!) and Hitler told them they had no right to interfere in Germany’s internal policies (you know, the Holocaust).

It was at roughly this point in time that people realized that the League of Nations was not actually doing what it thought it was doing, and pulled the plug on it.

Following WWII, people decided that wars were a bad thing that should – and could – be prevented.  So, they set up this organization whose purpose was to do exactly that by providing a supranational governance structure and a forum for a negotiated conflict resolution.  They called it the United Nations.

Promptly, the new ‘world government’ set about making the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and other unarguably worthy things.  Collectivists of the world unite, and all that…

Sound familiar?

Except that, the UN was LoN.2:  an upgraded release, with much more functionality and much wider reaching ambitions.

Now, the UN does not only want to ‘prevent war’ by providing a supranational governance structure, or to resolve international conflicts peacefully.  Now, it had taken upon itself the role of a ‘World Busybody’:  from the environment to our internal laws, nothing is outside of the UN’s scope of interest.

Don’t believe me just how intrusive the UN plans to be into the economic and social development of sovereign states?  Read it yourself – and you WILL weep!

Look at something as simple as the ages-old concept:  freedom of the seas!

Contrary to some modern claims that this is a new idea, the concept that the seas were not anyone’s sovereign property and that all have the right to travel them freely was a concept that has been around since (at least) the time of Cicero.  Yet, the UN has – criminally, in my never-humble-opinion – chosen to abort the ‘Freedom of the Seas’ and replace it with ‘Law of the Seas’!

Now, in this post, I don’t intend to delve too deeply into the L.O.S.T.:  this would take at least 1000 words, and most of them expletive.  Let it suffice to point out that under this ‘law’, the UN would have to protect all the seas:  so, anything that might affect them would be under their jurisdiction – including all the watersheds!  Want to build a city?  Is it in a watershed that drains to some sea somewhere?  Then the UN has the right to say when and how you can do it:  it has to protect the waters, you see.

Yes:  L.O.S.T. gives the UN the power over all the water on Earth!!!  And, the right – nay, the DUTY – to regulate EVERYTHING which might ‘affect water’.

Am I exaggerating?  Check it out.  Please!  I would very much like to be wrong on this one.  I may be presenting the extreme to which the letter of this ‘convention’ may be applied – I will grant this easily.  Yet, when have humans who want power have ‘established’ something, history shows us that they WILL push things ALL THE WAY to the extremes.  Therefore, it is only prudent that we examine what COULD be permitted under a law – because, eventually, it WILL be.

You see, replacing ‘Freedom’ with ‘Law’ is something the UN loves to do.  And, gaining more and more power over its member nations – being more and more intrusive in their internal policies – well, that is part of the observable pattern of the UN behaviour.

Please, consider this latest little ‘drop in the bucket’.

We are all aware that for several years in a row, the UN has submitted to pressures from ‘religious groups’ and has declared that the human right to freedom of speech MUST be limited in order to protect religious sensibilities.  Most of us refer to this as ‘The Blasphemy Law’.

What this means – in practice – is the re-criminalization of blasphemy against any religion in general, and Islam in particular.

By – yet again submitting – the UN has turned the clock of our civilization to back before the time of the Renaissance!!!

IT GETS WORSE!!!

This year, the UN plans to make its ‘Blasphemy Resolution’ BINDING on ALL ITS MEMBER STATES!!!!!!!!!

HOW DARE THEY!!!

Frankly, I don’t care WHICH religion:  I WILL BLASPHEME THEM ALL!!!

I suppose I am an ‘equalist’ when it comes to BLASPHEMY!

Why?

Because while I respect each person’s individual spirituality, I regard EACH and EVERY religion to be a manipulation of this very human spiritual dimension, sub-verted into the hands of powerhungry individuals in order to coerce obedience from the rest of us.

If THIS is what the UN wants to impose, I say it is time to abolish it!

What do YOU say?

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

Posted in freedoms, ignosticism, opression, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 4 Comments »

Who will dominate the emerging cultural hegemony?

March 9, 2009 — xanthippa

Recently, I have been re-reading a book by Eduard Storch called ‘Minehava’: in it, the history teacher/anthropologist turned author explores how and why early European tribal peoples turned from matrilinear societies into patrilinear ones.  Since his books targeted about the same age-group as Lois Lowry’s ‘The Giver, the explanations are a ‘little simplified’.  But, the basics are there:  population growth leads to greater population density, more ‘intercultural contact’ leads to increased need for resources, assuring survival of the culture more willing to assert its dominance…

It got me started thinking about just how great a societal uphaval the change must have been.  The adjustment to the expectations of the new social order must have been significant.

Now, we are also going through a bit of ‘societal upheaval’.

Of course, things are more complex now:  the larger a human society is, the more complex ‘running it’ becomes.  And, the ‘societal upheaval’ we are undergoing now is also much more complex.  Yet, deep down we know that it is nothing less than the beginnings of the integration of all humans into one, global culture.

Let’s face it – that is what is happening.  Whether we jump on the bandwagon quickly and work towards an integrated political system (world government) or not, the ease and speed of communication and immigration means that human societies throughout the world are indeed in the early stages of global cultural integration.  (The economic bit had started quite a while ago…)

So, how will this play out?

Will the ‘best’ values and cultural practices ‘win’?

We could have a long and heated debate on what ARE the ‘best’ values and cultural practices – and not come to an agreement. (Actually, a brawl is a more likely outcome…over the internet, a vitrual brawl, but brawl none-the-less!)  Yet, that debate would be mute.  Because THAT is not the deciding factor for selecting the dominant factors in our emerging cultural hegemony…

Throughout human history, we have seen that it is not the ‘wise’ whose opinions are followed – perhaps for a little while, but not in the long run.  Nor is it the ‘numerous’. And, let’s not even raise ‘the voice of reason’:  it only alienates the ‘unreasonable majority’!

Instead, it is those who are the ‘loudest’ whose voices dictate the course of human history!

Those who are the most stubborn, uncompromising and who are willing to drown-out all competing voices (regardless of how ruthlessly) – THOSE are the voices which always (eventually) come to dominate any dialogue – and it is THEY who eventually succeed in having their own values and practices imposed on the whole of society as the cultural ‘norms’.  Just look around!

Can we do anything to ensure that our voice – the voice of those who espouse freedoms of thought and speech, the voice which respects each individual – can we do anything to make sure that THAT voice is not drowned out?  That it is not silenced forever, destined to be nothing more than a footnote in the histry about ‘extinct cultures’?

I don’t know.

It may be too late.

And even if it were NOT too late, I don’t know if this voice would even stand a chance.  After all, when one’s very principles require one to treat others as equals – only to be treated (according to thier principals) back as an inferior – that tends to limit one’s ability to achieve ‘things’ (like, say, the survival of one’s ideas and ideals).

(I know I am expressing this poorly, sorry – I just don’t know how to say it better!  What I mean is that just like a person who will not use violence, even in self-defense, does not stand a chance of survival against a gang of those intent to do violence to her, so the voice which will not silence others will have little chance to be heard over the noise raised by its opponents who have no such scruples.  And, losing these ‘scruples’ would be to stop being that voice…)

So, what CAN we do?

Very little.

Aside from shouting as loudly as we can, without inhibbiting anyone else’s ability to shout, the only thing we can – and MUST – do is to teach people, especially young people, to question.

To question EVERYTHING.

Yes, it is not much.  And, it can be trying (yes, I AM raising a teenager!).  But teaching people to question everything:  from political correctness to their own views – secular, religious or whatever… from science to cultural practices, from teachers and parents to their friends – that is what will teach them to evaluate for themselves which ideas and ideals are worthy of keeping, and which are not.

And THAT is teaching them to exercise the freedom of thought!

I cannot think of any weapon that would be more powerful.

Which brings me to my last question:  can we arm enough young people with this weapon to make a difference?

I don’t know….  But, I’ll die trying!

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, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 7 Comments »

Islamist Khaled Mouammar got to select Canada’s immigrants

March 4, 2009 — xanthippa

In today’s National Post, John Ivison has an interesting piece of information:

It’s well known that the president of the Canadian Arab Federation recently called Jason Kenney, the Minister of Immigration, a “professional whore” for supporting Israel and criticizing the presence of Hamas and Hezbollah flags at a recent protest, prompting Mr. Kenney to say he would review the CAF’s federal funding.

But it is less well known that Mr. Mouammar spent the 11 years prior to February, 2005, sitting as a member of the Immigration and Refugee Board, deciding whether refugee claimants from such North African countries as Morocco, Egypt, Algeria and Somalia should be allowed to stay in Canada.

Is this true?

If so, we are in deeper trouble than we realized.  I’d like to write more right now, but – I am speechless!!!

(P.S. – ‘Islamist’ does not equal ‘Muslim’. Mr. Mouammar may be an ‘Orthodox Christian’, yet he supports and actively works to promote the interests of militant, political interpretation of Islam:  that makes him an Islamist.)

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

Posted in freedoms, immigrants, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , . 5 Comments »

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 »

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 »
« Older posts
Newer posts »