Pat Condell: ‘Thank God for Andy Choudary’

January 14, 2010 — xanthippa

Pat Condell raises some important points…

One thing he mentions is ‘Halal meat‘.

For a while, I have been trying to compose a post about this….but have been having a lot of trouble (I have a lot of trouble with things where there is serious cruelty to animals).  So, let me just urge you to read up about what the whole ‘Halal’ thing is about on your own.  I can’t even do links – sorry – it just bothers me to see this stuff so much…

While you do, I would like to ask you to pay attention to two separate ways in which ‘Halal food’ production will impact our society.

First and foremost is the cruelty with which animals must be slaughtered in order to be considered ‘Halal’.  This is obvious.

So, when choosing restaurants and fast food outlets, I always make sure to avoid ‘Halal certified’ places.  And, if you find the place you are in is serving ‘Halal’ meat, and you choose to walk out, please, tell them why.

Or, perhaps, if enough people ask  Peta, they might organize a ‘Halal-awareness Campaign’!  They’d be very good at it!

And, perhaps they would reveal just how ‘stealthily’ this ‘Halal-compliant’ food is entering our food chain.  Because some of the multinational food corporations are ‘standardizing’ their practices:  often, this means slaughtering all animals in compliance with ‘Halal’ rules, but only labeling the bits for their Muslim customers as such.  And, especially many school cafeterias are purchasing ‘Halal-only’ meat, in order to cater to the needs of their Muslim students.  (In other words, they are taking ‘Halal’ as the ‘common denominator’ and serving it to everyone!)

The other thing to keep in mind while reading up on ‘Halal’ food is just how incompatible the requirements to keep food ‘Halal’ are with the laws of our society!

For example, a non-Muslim may not be trusted to keep any food ‘Halal’ – and  must not be believed that any food they handled retains its ‘Halal’ status  (unless a ‘trusted, moral Muslim’ supervises their every move) .

Regardless of how closely the technique of  ‘Halal slaughter’ is adhered to, it may only be performed by a ‘moral Muslim’, or a Christian or Jew under close and direct and close supervision of a ‘moral Muslim’.

And, this continues throughout the food-preparation and delivery process.

In other words, a person’s employment is determined by their religious faith!

An employer is forced to hire preferably Muslims only, or, in a pinch, also Christians or Jews – as long as their supervisor is a Muslim…. and absolutely no non-Muslim supervisors are allowed!  As for anyone who does not follow one of the three Abrahamic faiths – they are not permitted to touch or handle the food, ever.  Sorry, Sikhs, Buddhists, non-believers or anyone else!  No work for you in the food industry!

But, an employer is not permitted, by law, to discriminate in their hiring or promotion practices based on a person’s religious beliefs!  Isn’t that right up there, in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Therefore, by the very fact that they are certified ‘Halal’, these places of employment are openly admitting that they are breaking the laws of our land!  That they are actively committing religious discrimination in their hiring practices!

If only we had some some sort of a Commission that would be able to  look into this….

Posted in opression, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , . 8 Comments »

Copenhagen Treaty vs. Liberty

December 11, 2009 — xanthippa

Whatever we may or may not think (or believe or disbelieve) about the role humans may or may not have played in the warming the Earth has experienced, or the rise in carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, we should all learn all we can about the Copenhagen Treaty.

Why?

Because if it is signed, what it says will become the ‘top law’ in the countries that sign it.  (Even if it is not signed – that it got ‘this close’ means that its content is significant – and likely to come up again in another form.)

In a democratic country, passing a new law is a long and arduous process:  there are all kinds of checks and balances in place in order to make sure that the lawmakers (and the people they represent – and who can vote them out if they misbehave) know what the law says and how it will impact society.

Typically, ‘a bill’ (a proposed law) has to pass a number of public readings (transparency – so ‘everyone’, in theory, is aware of what it says), where the different elected representatives are supposed to examine all its aspects in a thorough and objective (ideally) way, point out any of its potential pitfalls or shortcomings, take account of the public debate about it, suggest amendments and all that.  Only after this long process (which OUGHT NOT be shortened, for any reason, not even if Obama says so), if most of the elected representatives think that supporting it is more likely to get them re-elected than not (i.e. the will of ‘the people’) does this ‘bill’ become a ‘law’.

This is really, really important.

Yes, it is annoying and tedious, but important because it is the only mechanism through which the citizens of a democratic can assert their will on what laws govern their land.  (Legally, that is…)

Contrast that with the ‘Copenhagen Treaty’.

It is a whole set of laws, rules and regulations which we are told are necessary to ‘slow down the build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere’.

Because the atmosphere is shared by all the people on Earth, any rules or regulations to effectively deal with problems with it must be global.  Makes sense, when put that way…

So, the rules and regulations in the Copenhagen Treaty over-rule any laws or constitutions of the countries that sign it.  Because these are now ‘global rules’, and take precedence over ‘national laws’.

A country may not opt out (once in), unless the majority of the signatory countries agree to let them.

So, what exactly ARE these laws, rules and regulation?

Unlike the process for passing laws in democratic countries which I described above, a system where the content of a proposed law is open for examination and subject to public debate and scrutiny, we don’t really know the details of this whole set of powerful rules and regulations!

Yesterday, some leaked bits of it showed that it would permit ‘developed’ nations to emit something like twice the CO2 per person than ‘developing’ nations:  in other words, ‘developing’ nations would have their development arrested!

They would NOT be allowed to develop! To provide medicine to their people!  To build up their civilizations and raise their people’s standard of living!

NOT ALLOWED!

People in the ‘developed nations’ would have to pay huge amounts of money in taxes.  These taxes would then be used to keep ‘developing nations’ in a state of perpetual poverty and dependence on the ‘developed nations’!

In other words, the Copenhagen Treaty would force them to be the new slave-class.

So poor, they will be grateful for the little bit of medicine, they’ll readily agree to be part of a new vaccination or new medication study.

So hungry, they will accept any crop-seed – happy to get it and let the agro-businesses collect decades of data on its safety.

And – as horrible as this proposition is – it is just the tip of the proverbial ice-berg.

The even bigger issue is that the only way all the representatives found out about it was THROUGH A LEAK!!!

And, we do NOT KNOW what ELSE is there, that was not leaked…

In other words, the Copenhagen Treaty is a pig-in-a-poke – a pig-in-a-poke that will have the power to over-ride our Constitution and any rights and freedoms it guarantees us.

Regardless of your views on Global Warming:  is this a good idea?

Do the ends ever justify the means?

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Posted in debate, freedoms, opression, politics, science, scientific fraud, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

CodeSlinger: ‘The Comprachicos’ (Child Thiefs) by Ayn Rand

November 19, 2009 — xanthippa

Some of the most popular post on this site are the guest-posts by CodeSlinger.  Lately, I have been ranting on about the dangers of segregating school-aged children based on some ‘visible’ criteria:  race, creed, sex, and the like.  This intro is followed by a guest-post by CodeSlinger.

Since a race-segregated school has opened as a pilot project in Toronto, there have been calls for segregating boys out of ‘mainstream  schools’ and into ‘boys-only’ classrooms or schools, run by male teachers (this latter part, of course, is contrary to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms), where the ‘goals’ set for the students would be ‘more achievable’ for ‘boys’.  In other words, ‘maleness’ was re-defined as a ‘physical disability’ for which specialized, dumbed-down classrooms were needed….

CodeSlinger has thought about this:  and, while he asserts that the current atmosphere in our public schools is very damaging to boys, especially when they are young, he has come to agree that the same people who have entrenched ‘Cultural Marxism’ in our classrooms cannot be trusted not to use their position of power and influence to ensure the ‘b0ys-only’ programs are not designed to be even more ‘toxic’ to boys than the current variety is!

As part of this debate, CodeSlinger has offered the following:

The Comprachicos

by Ayn Rand

[emphasis added by CodeSlinger]

The comprachicos, or comprapequeños, were a strange and hideous nomadic association, famous in the seventeenth century, forgotten in the eighteenth, unknown today …

Comprachicos, as well as comprapequeños, is a compound Spanish word that means “child-buyers.” The comprachicos traded in children. They bought them and sold them.

They did not steal them. The kidnapping of children is a different industry.

And what did they make of these children?

Monsters.

Why monsters?

To laugh.

The people need laughter; so do the kings. Cities require side-show freaks or clowns; palaces require jesters …

To succeed in producing a freak, one must get hold of him early. A dwarf must be started when he is small …

Hence, an art. There were educators. They took a man and turned him into a miscarriage; they took a face and made a muzzle. They stunted growth; they mangled features. This artificial production of teratological cases had its own rules. It was a whole science. Imagine an inverted orthopedics. Where God had put a straight glance, this art put a squint. Where God had put harmony, they put deformity. Where God had put perfection, they brought back a botched attempt. And, in the eyes of connoisseurs, it is the botched that was perfect …

The practice of degrading man leads one to the practice of deforming him. Deformity completes the task of political suppression …

The comprachicos had a talent, to disfigure, that made them valuable in politics. To disfigure is better than to kill. There was the iron mask, but that is an awkward means. One cannot populate Europe with iron masks; deformed mountebanks, however, run through the streets without appearing implausible; besides, an iron mask can be torn off, a mask of flesh cannot.

To mask you forever by means of your own face, nothing can be more  ingenious …

The comprachicos did not merely remove a child’s face, they removed his memory. At least, they removed as much of it as they could. The child was not aware of the mutilation he had suffered. This horrible surgery left traces on his face, not in his mind. He could remember at most that one day he had been seized by some men, then had fallen asleep, and later they had   cured him. Cured him of what?  He did not know. Of the burning by sulphur and the incisions by iron, he remembered nothing. During the operation, the comprachicos made the little patient unconscious by means of a stupefying powder that passed for magic and suppressed pain …

In China, since time immemorial, they have achieved refinement in a special art and industry: the molding of a living man. One takes a child two or three years old, one puts him into a porcelain vase, more or less grotesque   in shape, without cover or bottom, so that the head and feet protrude. In the daytime, one keeps this vase standing upright; at night, one lays it
down, so that the child can sleep. Thus the child expands without growing, slowly filling the contours of the vase with his compressed flesh and twisted bones. This bottled development continues for several years. At a certain point, it becomes irreparable. When one judges that this has occurred and that the monster is made, one breaks the vase, the child comes out, and one has a man in the shape of a pot.

– Victor Hugo, The Man Who Laughs [Ayn Rand’s translation]

Victor Hugo wrote this in the nineteenth century. His exalted mind not conceive that so unspeakable a form of inhumanity would ever be possible again. The twentieth century proved him wrong.

The production of monsters—helpless, twisted monsters whose normal development has been stunted—goes on all around us. But the modern heirs of the comprachicos are smarter and subtler than their predecessors: they do not hide, they practice their trade in the open; they do not buy children,  the children are delivered to them; they do not use sulphur or iron, they achieve their goal without ever laying a finger on their little victims.

The ancient comprachicos hid the operation, but displayed its results; their heirs have reversed the process: the operation is open, the results are invisible. In the past, this horrible surgery left traces on a child’s face, not in his mind. Today, it leaves traces in his mind, not on his face. In both cases, the child is not aware of the mutilation he has
suffered. But today’s comprachicos do not use narcotic powders: they take a child before he is fully aware of reality and never let him develop that awareness. Where nature had put a normal brain, they put mental
retardation.

To make you unconscious for life by means of your own brain, nothing can  be more ingenious.

This is the ingenuity practiced by most of today’s educators.

They are the comprachicos of the mind.

They do not place a child into a vase to adjust his body to its contours.
They place him into a “Progressive” nursery school to adjust him to society.
…
And what do they make of these children?

Monsters.

Why monsters?

To rule.

So begins Ayn Rand’s essay, The Comprachicos, written in 1970. Since then, the comprachicos of the mind have had almost another half century to refine their technique, broaden the front of their attack, and make sure, in their own words, that no child is left behind.

Download and read the whole essay here:  Ayn Rand – The Comprachicos.

Then go do something about it!

Update:  the link to a pdf version of Ayn Rand’s essay has been added

Posted in education, freedoms, human nature, society. Tags: , , , , , . 3 Comments »

Heading up the CHRC: an explanation of my comments on Ezra’s site

October 27, 2009 — xanthippa

Yesterday, Ms. Lynch (Chief Commissioner of our Canadian – federal – Human Rights Commission) had testified in front of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (or something like that – I confuse easily…).  Our valiant defender of the right to not be annoyed – at the expense of the freedom of expression – was at her most patronizing!

Everyone’s favourite WebElf, Binks, has put the video on his site:  enjoy! And, he has some fun linkies tossed in, for good measure!

Walker Morrow also has all the best links on his blog, with a regular round-up of all ‘Jennifer Lynch-related’: The Lynch Mob

Of course, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant have had a few words about this, too!

Actually, Ezra Levant has a whole set of posts, as he was blogging it live!  (As were many other fine people – thanks to all of them!)  And, of course, I could not help myself:  while commenting at Mr. Levant’s site, I made a comment that can hardly be understood unless one knows some of my views on ‘things’….

Here is my comment:

OK – one more tiny little question…

If there were a job opening coming up for the head of the CHRC (as I suspect after today’s testimony, there just might be): how would one go about applying for the job?

My husband says I’d be good at it! (‘Change’ is still the ‘good’ mantra, right?)

 

The key here being ‘change’…. because, I do have a ‘slightly’ different idea of where the ‘balance of rights’ lies….

I do not have a passport, because as much as I am a Canadian patriot, I do not recognize the government’s jurisdiction over me on this issue.  I am not the slave (chattal) of my government, for them to issue me some ‘papers’ which permit or deny me the right to travel, inside or outside of my country!

Sorry, that is just too much of a government encroachment upon me and my person!

Nor do I believe that a government has the jurisdiction to tax people against their will.  A government only exists at the sufferance of the populace:  its role is to provide external defense and to uphold internal laws.  Citizens ought to be free to contribute to the upkeep of the government at their will – the government does not have the moral (and ought not have the legal) right to extort taxes from its citizens by coercion or force.

Do you think people would then not pay their taxes?  I think we would.  When is the last time you received an awesome service in a restaurant, and did not leave a tip?  I have certainly never skimped….provided the service was acceptable and I am known to ‘overtip’ if the service is excellent!  The same should go for taxes.

Because, if a government has the power to set the tax rate AND to FORCE the citizens to pay the taxes it sets, regardless of democracy or anything else, we will see irresponsible government spending, waste in the civil service, corruption… We all know the story!

Thus – in my never-humble-opinion – it is a gross violation of human rights and freedoms for a government to exact taxes by force of law, to collect personal information about its citizens, to issue ‘travel permits’, and so on.  And, if I were the Chief Commissar of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, my first target would be the overbloated, over-reaching, oppressive government which is smothering us, our rights, denying us our freedoms!

THAT is the ‘change’ I was referring to in my comment….

Though, my husband thinks I’d be very effective at it!

 

Posted in about, freedoms, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . 3 Comments »

Pat Condell: Wake up, America

October 25, 2009 — xanthippa
Posted in atheism, freedoms, opression, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

More corporate fascism for squashing freedom of speech

October 19, 2009 — xanthippa

In my short post yesterday, Thunderf00t’s video demonstrated how easy it is for a large corporation – specifically Google, which controls how the vast majority of information on the internet is accessed – could easily collude with politicians for their own benefit…and to the detriment of us, the ‘little people’.  In addition, Thunderf00t demonstrated how, through YouTube, Google had already demonstrated that they do censor (by not allowing their search engines to ‘pick it up’ and thus making it ‘virtually dissappear’) information which is critical of them…

The desire, means and ability:  it’s all there!

Sadly, that is just the tip of the iceberg!!!

From Michael Geist:

… the Electronic Commerce Protection Act comes to a conclusion in committee on Monday as MPs conduct their “clause by clause” review. While I have previously written about the lobbying pressure to water down the legislation [to protect consumer rights] (aided and abetted by the Liberal and Bloc MPs on the committee) and the CMA’s recent effort to create a huge loophole, I have not focused on a key source of the pressure. Incredibly, it has been the copyright lobby – particularly the software and music industries – that has been engaged in a full court press to make significant changes to the bill.

…

The DRM [Digital Rights Managament] concern arises from a requirement in the bill to obtain consent before installing software programs on users’ computers. This anti-spyware provision applies broadly, setting an appropriate standard of protection for computer users. Yet the copyright lobby fears it could inhibit installation of DRM-type software without full knowledge and consent. Sources say that the Liberals have introduced a motion that would take these practices outside of the bill.

…

Even more troubling are proposed changes that would allow copyright owners to secretly access [personal] information on users’ computers.

(my emphasis and notes)

OK – let’s sum up:

Large multinational corporations are lobbying (and succeeding, with Liberal and Quebec PMs) to allow changes to the proposed  Electronic Commerce Protection Act which will permit – in the name of protecting their copyright – manufacturers of products (from video games to music CDs to just about anything else that is ‘electronic media’) to install and run programs on your computer, which would gather personal data about you and your computer use.  And, it would allow them to do it without your permission – and even without your knowledge!!!

If there really are people out there who think this is something that only concerns people who steal music or movies, please, think twice.

Do we permit the police – who, at least, are accountable to the citizenry – to wiretap our phone ‘just to make sure we are not breaking the law’?  NO!  They must prove, to the satisfaction of a judge, that there is a cause for surveillance, get a court order, and only then can they listen in.  If it ever gets to court, the police are obligated to disclose all that they have.  And, so it should be.

This lobbied-for change would, in effect, permit private corporations – who are not accountable to anyone but their own BOD and shareholders – to ‘wiretap’ your computer, monitor every keystroke, access data in every bit of memory.  Without any judicial oversight, without any requirement that they disclose the information they collected – or what it was they were collecting in the first place.

This would permit corporations to install ANY SPYWARE  THEY WANT on ANY computer… and this software could attack any program or data it deemed to be in breech of DRM.

And, you have no say in it.

Remember what happened to all those Kindle users, who woke up one day and found books they legally purchased deleted, because somewhere higher up the chain, people were bickering about digital rights?

Well, this would become the norm:  anyone who had any claim to a copyright could install software on your computer – without you even knowing about it – and if this found anything it considered breeched its DRM, it would delete it.  Even if you bought it legally.  Because if there were any dispute anywhere along the line, their ability to delete ‘the content’ would be supreme.  Really.

Is this reasonable?

Is this the fair balance of rights?

And if you don’t think this is happening already, you are wrong!

Even Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, warns of the impact these changes would have to the privacy rights of Canadian citizens:

Technological advances hold out the promise of greater convenience, but sometimes at a cost to human rights such as privacy and the ability to control our personal information.

Meanwhile, governments and businesses have a seemingly insatiable appetite for personal information.

Governments appear to believe – mistakenly, I would argue – that the key to national security and public safety is collecting mountains of personal data. Privacy often receives short shrift as new anti-terrorism and law enforcement initiatives are rolled out.

Personal information has also become a hot commodity in the private sector. Our names, addresses, purchases, interests, likes and dislikes are recorded, analysed and stored – all so companies can sell us more products and services.

Adding to our concerns is the fact many businesses fail to adequately protect this sensitive information – leaving it vulnerable to hackers and identity thieves.

And if you thought THAT was not enough….

This idea has been ‘rumbling about’ for a few months, but recently received publicity when Eugene Kasparsky openly stated that each internet user should have an internet passport.  This would, presumably, document their every click and keystroke, which could then be monitored through increased internet regulation.  I dare reach this conclusion because Mr. Kasparsky also said that there must be no anonymity on the internet, and any country which refuses to regulate and monitor its citizens should be cut off the net.

Oh, and this should all be enforced by ‘internet police’!

I’d like to change the design of the Internet by introducing regulation—Internet passports, Internet police, and international agreement—about following Internet standards. – Eugene Kaspersky,
CEO of Russia’s Kaspersky Lab

OK – this idea is radical now.  You may shake your head and say this will never be possible.

But, 40 years ago, did anyone think that, once accused, the ‘truth’ could not be used as ‘defense’?

Posted in opression, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , . 3 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 »

When ‘spokespeople’ tarnish the whole group…

September 9, 2009 — xanthippa

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

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

Why?

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

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

Let’s consider them, one at a time:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The key word here is ‘RADICAL’!

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

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

Take note:  this is an important distinction!

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

The ‘spokespeople’ claimed he had maligned ALL Muslims!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 4, 2009 — xanthippa

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

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

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

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

Another article on the same topics says:

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

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

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

Yeah….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ‘frog in hot water’ story…

September 1, 2009 — xanthippa

First of all, I must say that I do not approve of this sort of experiments.  Not at all.

Still, this story is worth learning from:

If someone puts a frog into a pot of very hot water, the frog will jump out of the pot.  BUT,  if one puts the frog into a  pot of cool water, and then heats it up very, very slowly, the frog will not jump out – it will allow itself to be boiled!

Because the temperature is increasing so slowly, there is no ‘trigger’ to signal the danger in the frog…so the frog takes no action to avoid it!

When it comes to our rights and freedoms, we are a lot like these frogs:  because our rights are being eroded very, very slowly, we just sit there and allow it to go on and on and on, without lifting a finger to try and preserve the very rights and freedoms which define our society.

Because  the process of erosion of our rigthts is so slow and gradual, we lack the ‘trigger’, that one ‘oppression’ which is, on its own, worth standing up and starting to fight!

And that is, in a very real way, true.  No single little encroachment on our rights, no new little oppression, is, by itself, so big that it alone would be worthy of a ‘revolt‘.  That is why it is so easy to ridicule those who get incensed about it!

But it is the continuous process of steady and unmistakable – and, it seems, unavoidable – usurption of our rights, encroachment on our freedoms, which is going to leave us slaves of The State:

  • The State will control what we can spend all of our money on (they will tax just about all our disposable income and only give us ‘tax-rebates’ to buy the products they ‘approve’:  an ‘allowance’ which we will only ‘get’ if we spend it ‘the right way’)
  • The State will control what medical care is warranted, and when, and who maybenefit from it and who may not (many ‘smokers’ are already being denied medical treatment…just the tip of the iceberg:  the justification that ‘we are all paying into Medicare, so we have the right what ‘risks’ to your health you must avoid’ will be used more and more to control people’s private behaviour, threatening to deny medical treatment to those who do not comply) (OK – I worded this badly…I am trying to get across that The State already does, and will do so more and more, use the justification that it is ‘paid into by’ everyone’ – so ‘everyone’  has the responsibily to only use it ‘wisely’ – and since they are administering it, they get to decided what is ‘using it wisely’ ‘ to weild ‘Medicare’ as a means of controlling more and more of our behaviours.)
  • The State already controls what we may or may not eat/put into our body – and these laws are becoming more and more intrusive, and will continue this trend
  • The State is passing more and more laws which erode private property rights and regulate how we may or may not behave while we are ‘in our private homes’
  • The State already controls education
  • More and more people are becoming directly or indirectly employed by The State, as The State is increasingly usurping the roles of private businesses:  this gives The State even more intrusive control over the populationwhile effectively suppressing dissent (most people are afraid to ‘bite the hand that feeds them’)
  • The State is increasingly controlling what we may or may not say – and has even, through its singularly misnamed ‘Human Rights Commissions/Tribunals’ – found a way to punish people for thinking forbidden thoughts!
  • …the list goes on and on and on…

And because each tiny little step is so small, we are letting it happen!

We should pay attention to the ‘frog in hot water’ story, before it is too late to ‘jump out of the pot’!

Posted in freedoms, human nature, perceptions, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 1 Comment »
« Older posts
Newer posts »