More abuse of copyright laws…

September 1, 2010 — xanthippa

Each and every law, by-law and rule WILL eventually be stretched way beyond its intended purpose – so much so, its intended purpose may be completely obscured or even lost.  (I like to call that Xanthippa’s first law of human dynamics.)

And, it is to be expected – this is part of human nature.

As long as we are trying to just sort of get along, we talk and argue, win some and loose some, but, usually, over the long time, things usually even out.  Not all people are nice and fair – but, the vast majority of humans are at least somewhat empathetic and when they are ‘getting along’ with each other, one-on-one, most of the time, most people will be mostly fair.

That is how communities are built. And if there is one thing we, humans, do, it is building communities!

This all changes once we get ‘rules’ and ‘laws’ written down.

Why?

Because now, it is no longer about ‘getting along with other people’.  Now it is about ‘maximizing advantages’.

Being survivors,  we humans are excellent at ‘maximizing advantages’!

It’s one of our survivor skills – it’s one of the traits which makes us, humans, such a successful species.

Just as we are likely to be ‘fair’ when dealing with other individuals, we are certainly going to try our best to ‘maximize our advantage’ when dealing with ‘external circumstances’.

And make no mistakes about it:  once something is codified into a rule or a law, it becomes an abstract thing.  It is no longer about ‘getting along with another person’ – it becomes an external limiting factor to be defeated.  Deep within our psyches, these are very different concepts and it is not surprising that we do not treat them similarly.

(Just consider the changes in the ‘driving culture’ as towns in Europe are removing all traffic signs and signals – rule-based behaviour was replaced by social behaviour, leading to fewer accidents.)

This is why it is essential that before we make a rule or pass a law or by-law, we examine all possible ways it could be abused in – it is certain that, eventually,  it will be.

This includes  copyright laws.

Like traffic laws, copyright laws affect just about everyone – so it is important to get it right.

At ‘The Propagandist’, Walker Morrow points out how these poorly thought-out copyright laws are being abused by a predatory company, stifling the flow of information – all for a monetary gain.

If that weren’t enough, here is a piece by Thunderf00t about a Viacom, ordering its employees to go down to Kinkos to upload Viacom copyrighted videos onto YouTube – then suing YouTube for copyright violation…

Perhaps we need a to re-think our whole approach to copyright laws, like those towns in Europe changed their approach to traffic management!

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

‘Regular Tamils’ are returning to Sri Lanka: so, who is aboard the MV Sun Sea?

August 13, 2010 — xanthippa

Sometimes, one has to wonder at the level of our ‘public debate’.

The latest example is the ship which had entered Canadian waters today, loaded with ‘Tamil political refugees’.

Some claim the boat is chock full of  ‘human smugglers’ and Tamil Tigers – a terrorist organization which is best known for (among other things):

The ‘public debate’ is dominated by the questions of how to separate the ‘legitimate refugees’ from the terrorists hiding among them, how to treat them, what process to apply to them, and so on.  This is all done among the warnings that  several more ships are ready to set out.  Whether they also head for Canada depending on how Canada treats this shipload….because Canada has a reputation as a naive pushover when it comes to aggressive immigrants.

The mainstream media is, rather predictably, not getting to the core of the issues – which pretty much ensures that the public remains ignorant of them, much less that they get discussed.

As it happens…

Until recently, my husband used to work with an excellent engineer who just happens to be a Tamil émigré.

Very intelligent, a competent and skilled engineer, with a six-figure salary.

Her husband also had an excellent job.

When their homeland on Sri Lanka was being torn apart by the ‘conflict’, they left, came to Canada and made a home here for themselves and their kids.

But, the conflict is over.

Done with.

Gone.

No, things are not ‘perfect’.  Of course not.  25 years of bitter conflict, with hundreds of thousands of deaths on both sides, take a while to ‘work out’.

But, the time for fighting is over and the time for re-building has begun.  And, many ‘regular’ Tamils who had been driven from their homeland are returning and starting the process of rebuilding  everything, from the infrastructure and the economy to the social fabric of the country.

According to my hubby’s friend, ‘things’ are now ‘safe’ on Sri Lanka, even for ‘regular Tamils’.  Safe enough for these two intelligent and practical people to bring their kids back ‘home’.

Which makes me wonder:

If ‘regular Tamils’ and their families are returning home to Sri Lanka, who are the people claiming to be refugees?

If Sri Lanka is now safe for ‘regular Tamils’,  why is it not safe for the people on the MV Sun Sea?

If law-abiding citizens – Tamils or not – feel that Sri Lanka is safe for them, exactly whom is it NOT ‘safe’ for?

Could it, perhaps, be the people who were part of the Tamil Tiger terrorist network?

This would be in agreement with the warnings we have received that the boat is loaded with Tamil Tiger terrorists…  Except that, instead of genuine ‘refugees infiltrated by some terrorists’ – as the boat’s passengers are being presented to us by the mainstream media, the whole boat is, perhaps, filled with people who are ‘refugees’ because they (and their kids) are escaping justice for their terrorist activities?

I don’t know.  But, if Sri Lanka is now so safe, pragmatic Tamils (and engineers do tend to be pragmatic) are returning there from Canada because the situation there is now ‘safe for regular Tamils’, I don’t know what other conclusion to reach.  At least, not logically….

Which brings me to my second point.

I am an immigrant to Canada.  Before I came here, I was a refugee – a genuine refugee – and was granted a political asylum in Austria.  So, I do know a little bit about the international laws that govern that whole pesky ‘refugee’ thingy… both in theory and from practical experience.

The thing is – international law has very specific laws governing refugees.

There are several kinds of refugees:  coming from a country which is now peaceful (no civil war or conflict), which has not experienced any natural disasters lately, one where the economy has not collapsed, the only kind of refugees the international laws recognize are ‘political refugees’.

There are specific protections for political refugees under international law – for obvious reasons.  However, there are also some very strict rules political refugees have to obey in order to earn those legal protections and enjoy the status of ‘political refugee’.

The  number one rule – the one every country (other than Canada, to the best of my knowledge) – for ‘political refugees’ is that they MUST request political asylum in the nearest country where it is safe for them to do so.

The reasons for this are simple, yet important:  countries in the region are better aware of the details of the internal political situation of the country the potential refugees are coming from.  So, the understanding of the nuances of the local picture is much more likely – both because the closest ‘safe’ country’s government is likely keep abreast of the latest political developments in their area of the world and because it is bound to have ‘good assets’ on the ground to verify specific claims.

Plus, if there is a specific area of the world which is, over an extended period of time, seeing more political refugees than other parts, either UN-run or UN-supervised refugee camps can be set up there.  I went through one of these:  they are not necessarily more ‘comfortable’, but they certainly are much more efficient.  They have channels set up to verify people’s identities, check their international criminal records, assess the veracity of their claims as well as the potential danger they are in.

Yes, the advent of the internet has made much of the checking easier, without the need for centralized facilities.  But, some of the other ‘stuff’  is still best verified as locally as possible.

Which brings me back to the MV Sun Sea:  Canada is not exactly the NEAREST safe country for Tamil refugees to seek shelter in!

Sri Lanka – formerly known as Ceylon – happens to be right next to the subcontinent of India.  The same India which has been a strong supporter of the Tamils, sometimes even accused of being too supportive of them.

This ship has had to pass right by the – perhaps – safest, most supportive of the Tamil cause.  Then it has had to pass by a whole slew of countries, navigate directly away from the democratic countries of Australia and New Zeland.  Then it has had to traverse across the largest body of water on Earth, the Pacific Ocean,  intentionally avoiding the US islands there….

…before making it to Canada!

That means that the boat (and the refugee-status seekers on it) have intentionally breeched international laws and bypassed many safe havens – just to get here.

This act, in itself, makes each and every passenger on the MV Sun Sea NOT ELIGIBLE to receive the status of ‘political refugee’, according to international laws.  (Yes, I am not a lawyer – but, that is my best understanding of the laws.)

To sum things up:  ‘regular Tamils’ are returning from countries like Canada to Sri Lanka, because the conflict is over and it is safe for those Tamils who were not terrorists to return ‘back home’ and begin rebuilding the society.  And, the political asylum seekers on the MV Sun Sea have disqualified themselves from being eligible for that status under international law by not seeking asylum in the closest available safe haven to Sri Lanka.

Until these facts are highlighted and Canadians in general are made aware of them, we cannot even engage in any kind of a  reasonable, informed debate as to the appropriateness of actions our government ought to take with respect to these asylum seekers….

Posted in debate, politics, society, war. Tags: , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

A look at Sharia as the parallel legal system in Indonesia

August 10, 2010 — xanthippa

Sharia is the Islamic law based on a very particular interpretation of the Koran and Hadith, developed by Islamic scholars and codified in more or less the current form by about the 1200’s.

Many people suggest that Sharia ought to be introduced into Western countries, to be used as a parallel legal system.  The idea is that ‘regular’, State-run and State-regulated courts would be available to Muslims, but, they would also have the option of choosing to have their cases heard by Sharia courts.  Once this choice is made, the Sharia rulings would then be legally binding.

Britain, for example, had instituted Sharia courts as a parallel legal system since 2008.

Elena Kegan, soon to be sworn as the 112th justice to the  US Supreme Court, also actively promotes this idea.  This anti-free-speech activist has been responsible for the inclusion of Sharia in the constitution of several countries, including Pakistan, and appears to think the USA would also benefit from a parallel Sharia legal system.  She herself has worked hard to built the institutions of Sharia banking, through which money can be channeled to finance violent jihad.

In my never-humble-opinion, multiple legal systems which divide the population along ethnic, cultural of religious lines are not only immoral, they are highly destructive to the social fabric of a country.  The moment there are different laws for different segments of society, perceptions of unfair benefits/inequalities will always exist.  These will serve to tribalize a society – and be a tool through which governments can manipulate the populace.

The old ‘divide and conquerer’ thing.

The only way all citizens can truly be equal in the eyes of the law is if there is one set of laws which applies to everyone equally.

This seems so straight forward and logical to me that I have difficulty understanding how some people simply seem unable to grasp these facts – even before we even talk about the implications of replacing civil authority by a specific segment of the population and replacing it with a religious authority.

Which leaves the question:  am I over-reacting?  Would a society with Sharia as a parallel legal system be better than the one we have now?

Perhaps looking at examples of how its working out in some country where this situation exists might help show us how a religious parallel legal system  impacts society.

Malaysia neighbours Indonesia – a country with the world’s largest Muslim population.  And, even though only 60% of Malaysia’s 28 million inhabitants are Muslim, Islam permeates its life.  Its legal system used to be solely based on the British civil code, until Sharia was introduced as a parallel legal system for Muslims.

This is exactly what proponents of a parallel Sharia system in the West are advocating – so let us look at a few, real-life examples of how this is working out in Malaysia:

Child marriage

The age of consent for girls/women to  enter into marriage in Malaysia is 16 years of age.  This, however, is at odds with Sharia, which places no minimum age on marriage for females.  In order to become Sharia-compliant, this minimum age will now no longer be binding on Muslims, provided the father/guardian approves the marriage.

Sharia permits child prostitution – as long as the clergy gets its cut.  This accommodation to Sharia strips each and every female child born to a Muslim family of any legal protection from being forcibly married or forced into child prostitution…

Personally, I do not think this is a positive thing.

Flogging of Muslims for alcohol consumption

In Malaysia, alcohol consumption is not illegal.  It is legally sold, and available in places like, say, night clubs, where anyone may legally purchase and drink alcohol.  Unless, of course, one is a Muslim.

Because Sharia forbids the consumption of alcohol, any Muslim caught consuming this legal substance will be handed over to Sharia courts for punishment.  The linked story documents a case of one Muslim woman who was caned for drinking a beer at a night club.

OK – perhaps alcohol consumption is not as cherished a thing as our core human rights.  Granted.

But, that is not the point – the ‘subject’ of the religion-selective-behaviour is less important than the division itself.  On a practical level – how does one go about policing a society where what is legal for one citizen will result in the caning of another? You cannot tell what a person’s religious beliefs are by simply looking at them!

Just consider the every-day implications for existing in a society that needs to ascertain each individual citizens’ beliefs at every step of policing….

The next few stories require a little introduction to Sharia for those not already familiar with it.

Officially, there is freedom of religion in Malaysia:  this is guaranteed by Article 11 of the Malaysian Constitution.

Thus, a person born to Christian or Hindu or Taoist or Sikh (or one of the many other religions officially practiced there) parents is permitted to practice that faith.  To this end, the religion to which a person has been born is officially recorded in their citizenship record and appears in their passport as well as all government-issued documents.  Should one choose to convert from the religion to which one was born, there is a mechanism through which one can petition to have one’s religion officially changed.

Now, here is an interesting point to Sharia:  if a Muslim is living in a country which does NOT recognize Sharia as any form of a legal system, the Koran directs that the secular laws of the land must be followed.  However, if a country recognizes Sharia in any kind of a legal or semi-legal form, all Muslims are bound to

Among other things, Sharia states that a non-Muslim may not be in a position of authority over a Muslim.  Therefore, to be Sharia-compliant, a Muslim may not work for a non-Muslim; a Muslim may not accept a binding ruling by a non-Muslim (if a Sharia court is available, effectively making Sharia mandatory for all Muslims where Sharia courts are recognized).

This also means that a Muslim woman may not be married to a non-Muslim man:  according to Sharia, a husband is in a position of authority over his wife.  Therefore, a non-Muslim man may not be the husband of (and thus in a position of authority over) a Muslim woman.  It also means that non-Muslim parents are not permitted to raise a child perceived to be Muslim.

Sharia courts split inter-faith marriages, forcibly remove children

There are numerous cases where, after Sharia was implemented, families had been forcibly split up.

The first well-known case was that of 21-year-long marriage between a Muslim woman and a Hindu man – and with 6 children’s lives to consider – being ruled illegal because the husband did not convert to Islam.  The woman was taken away for Islamic ‘re-education’ for an indeterminate period of time:  until she re-embraces Islam.

Here is a case where a woman born to Muslim parents married a Hindu man and attempted to officially change her religious status to reflect her conversion to Hinduism.  Sharia courts still had jurisdiction over her, imprisoned her until she recants her conversion away from Islam and denied the father custody of their child, placing her with Muslim relatives instead.

Under Sharia, divorce rules strongly favour the husband, both when it comes to marital property and custody of children.

Here is a case of a Hindu couple, wed in a Hindu ceremony and subject to civil law, took a surreal turn.  The husband had officially converted to Islam – then, as a Muslim, he sought divorce under Sharia.  The wife remained Hindu and while she did not oppose the divorce, she wanted the case heard in civil courts – as was her right.

She lost.  As the husband is a Muslim, Sharia takes precedence….

Barring conversion after marriage – could the Muslim women who wished to marry non-Muslim men have prevented the legal problems under Sharia?

Well, that is another problem:  because Sharia has supremacy over Muslims, the civil courts do not have the jurisdiction to record the religious conversion of any person who is officially registered as ‘Muslim’.  To record a conversion away from Islam, a person must petition the Sharia courts to make the required administrative changes.

Except that…

Sharia does not permit conversion from Islam to another religion!

The penalty for even wanting to convert is severe:  from death to caning and imprisonment until one ‘chooses’ to re-embrace Islam.

Here is a case of a Muslim woman who wanted to convert to Christianity.

And then there is the case of Rani:

Rani born to a Muslim mother but since a sixteenth day old baby was adopted and brought up as a Hindu by a Hindu family. Rani practices Hinduism and wants to live and die as a Hindu . But the UMNO Jabatan Agama Islam stormed into her house and her husband Muniandy that very same night was forcibly circumcised. Muniandy was earlier threatened with a six year jail sentence if he did not convert to Islam. Now after thirty years later Rani’s daughter Vijiyaletchumi and Sasikala ( who is now 6 months pregnant ) are now suffering the very same predicament her mother Rani faced some thirty years ago because their identity cards carries a Muslim name although she practices Hinduism and has never practiced Islam.

I wonder if this is what the proponents of introducing Sharia here want our society to be like.

Update:  Sorry, but I forgot to include this story of a young woman who was born and raised a Hindu.  When she was 7 years old, she spent time in an orphanage run by Muslim workers.  While she was in their care, they officially changed her religious status from ‘Hindu’ to ‘Muslim’.  An adult now, she hopes to marry a Hindu man and wishes to live as a Hindu, the religion she was raised in.  Unfortunately, she is not permitted to marry a non-Muslim, as a Muslim she is under the jurisdiction of Sharia courts, and Sharia courts do not permit her to leave Islam, even if her ‘conversion’ was not her choice and considers herself a Hindu.

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

Ontario’s illegal ‘eco-tax’ scrapped and ‘under review’

July 20, 2010 — xanthippa

Last Saturday, there was a protest at Premier Dalton McGuinty’s constituency office.  Yes, even his brother, David McGiunty (a federal MP for this part of Ottawa) showed up at the protest!

The protest was sparked by a totally evil thing the McGuinty Liberals have done:  on the same day that prices went up because of the introduction of HST (no problem with the ‘what’ of the HST, but rather the ‘how’ – it was imposed on tons of products previously tax exempt – an unelected agency of the Ontario Government, whose board of directors is composed of ‘industry partners’, imposed an ‘eco-fee’ on  over 8 thousand  new items…

I say ‘new items’, because this ‘eco-fee/eco-tax’ had first been introduced in 2008:  but so quietly, on not that many items, and not so high…..so nobody really ‘noticed’ it.  Having ‘established’ this method and legitimized it (no protests were seen against it), the McGuinty Liberals then cynically decided that the danger was ‘past’ and they can begin to ‘tighten the screws’.

This is an important pattern we must be aware of:  a government – any government – can introduce some measure.  Perhaps this measure is not really noticed (like this ‘Stewardship Ontario’ program – not to be confused with a completely different and unrelated government initiative called ‘Ontario Stewardship’), or perhaps it is even applauded by the populace because it appears to remove a perceived (rightly or wrongly perceived) threat (like, say, banning the full Islamic facial veil).  Once the measure and the method has been ‘accepted’ and ‘normalized’, the government can then expand on it:  using this new ‘tool’ to their own benefit.  If anyone speaks out – they can claim this is ‘the accepted way of doing things’!

That is why we need to really really examine not just the ‘what’ of each thing a government does, of each new law passed, but perhaps even more importantly – the ‘how’ of it!    But, I am off on a tangent….sorry, I have the attention span of a gnat!

Today, the Ontario Environment Minister announced that the ‘eco-fees’ are ‘scrapped’.

Not exactly ‘gone‘….

Just their current format is ‘scrapped’.

For now, the Ontario Government will take 3 months to ‘study’ the issue – and pay five million dollars from general revenue over the next 3 months to maintain the programs while it tries to figure out another way to  stick us with the bill.

Bob Chiarelli, the Ontario Government’s Communication Minister (and thus the guy who ought to have told us about this), has openly claimed in both the press and radio interviews that ‘NONE of the money collected through the eco-fees  goes to GOVERNMENT’ – yet we are now told that programs like the ‘Blue Box recycling’, which we have been told are paid from our municipal property taxes and their cost used as a justification to raise the municipal taxes, well, we are now being told these programs are being 100% paid for through the eco-fees!

So – which is it?

Are we paying for recycling programs through our property taxes – as our municipal politicians are telling us – or are we paying for it through this eco-fee?  One level of government or the other has GOT to be lying!

But, I am off on a tangent again…

What is important – really important – about this ‘eco-fee’ is the HOW of it all…

Ontario Government had – ages ago –  created ‘Stewardship Ontario’ with a board of ‘industry partners’ to work on these recycling initiatives.   The idea was that since industry is producing the things which need to be diverted from garbage dumps, they ought to be consulted on ways to deal with diverting ‘stuff’ from the dumps.  We were told it was supposed to be a sort of a ‘think tank’ type thing.

The Board of Directors of Stewardship Ontario is  truly made up of ‘industry giants’:  from McCain Foods and Canadian Tire Corp. to Procter & Gamble and Loblaw Companies Ltd. …

So, this ‘arms-length’ organization, with a BOD made up entirely of ‘industry partners’ (read ‘big business corporations’) is given power, by the government, to tax citizens!!!

What is the definition of fascism?

Ah – fascism is DEFINED as  ‘the collusion of big government and big business’!!!

How much more ‘collusion’ can there be between ‘big government’ and ‘big business’ than for the government to give the big business the ability to levy taxes (which is what non-voluntary fees are) on the citizens?!?!?!?

Ontario taxpayers have seen some serious money mismanagement in the past.  The ‘e-Health’ scandal has been a billion-dollar program that funneled money from the woefully broke medical system to ‘advisers’ who were not just highly overpaid McGuinty cronies, they also provided exactly zero value for their services….

Now, Lisa McLeod, an opposition MPP, has revealed during a radio interview that some of these same e-Health consultants are also ‘consulting’ for Stewardship Ontario…

Please, think of this:  the very sleazy skum-buckets  who claimed the Ontario Government is not the one who imposed these ‘fees’ have had no problem ‘scrapping them’…because now, the Ontario Government is taking credit for ‘scrapping’ them.

And, in 3 month’s time, they hope to have figured out another way to weasel the money out of us!

Posted in corruption, freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 6 Comments »

Even more photos from the McGuinty eco-tax protest in Ottawa

July 17, 2010 — xanthippa

Some of the photos are posted here.

Still, there were some excellent signs I didn’t get ‘in there’.  So, here are more photos:

Dalton McGrinchy

Dalton McGrinchy

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

Photos from ‘McGuinty eco-tax’ protest, Ottawa

July 17, 2010 — xanthippa

Today, a crowd of several hundred people had gathered in front of Premier Dalton McGuinty’s constituency office to protest the illegal taxes he has imposed on Ontario taxpayers, disguised as ‘eco-fees’.

The photos speak for themselves:

There was a visible – put very polite and respectful police presence.  Their only concern seemed to be that nobody got run over by the many cars driving by (and mostly honking).  One could not help but get the impression that they kind of agreed with the protesters!

The above picture is across the street from Dalton McGuilty’s office – the parking lot in the ratty-little strip mall where he has his office was too small to hold the protest, so it spilled across the street (no sidewalk there) and even into the near side street!

Dalton McGrinchy himself made an appearance!

With his trusty ECO-VAC, he was vacuuming everyone’s money!

The  reporters/media just LOVED  Dalton McGrinchy!

OK – I am a really really bad reporter – I don’t even know the names of the people who organized it , or most of the speakers.  However, I did recognize CFRA’s popular Rob Snow, who really got the crowd whipped up!

By this point, it had begun to rain – a little.

Then, somebody (OK, Jessica) made a discovery:  David McGuinty, Dalton’s brother and a Liberal MP for this riding, was sitting in his car in the parking lot!

While we all concluded that even Dalton’s brother supports this protest, once his identity had been revealed, he drove away bravely.  Due to the rain, the picture I got turned out too foggy to use…  Sorry!

Anyhow…

It was quite a crowd:  young and old and in-between!

Dalton McGuinty was unavailable for comment:  rather than coming to the protest and facing the music, he chose to go on holiday….on our dime!

Update:  even more photos.

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

Banning ‘the veil’: the end does not justify the means

July 15, 2010 — xanthippa

France is just one of a growing number of European countries which have been passing laws which forbid wearing veils that cover one’s face in public.

While I loath all forms of this apparel, I loath this law even more – and have said so often and loudly.

Here is my take on it:

OK – I’m not a fan…

For many reasons.

The origin of veiling women’s faces is in the practice of owning wives as a class of slaves.  This is the history.  Not good – and nothing rooted in this tradition will likely meet with my approval.

Today, some women are forced to veil their faces in public, either through physical or emotional coercion.  This, of course, is unacceptable.

In many instances, the facial veil is being used as a means of isolating a woman from the greater culture:  this form of isolation prevents her from forming social bonds of her own among the greater community – and prevents her from building a support mechanism which would help her escape from any potentially abusive situation.  I’m going to be repeating myself:  this, of course, is unacceptable.

Yes, many women today do wear the full facial veil of their own free will, as a symbol of their ‘identity’.   This, I find even more offensive!  Setting aside the whole psychoanalytical thing of women choosing to self-identify with cattle, this is an act of haughty contempt for everyone else individually and the society as a whole.  It is an aggressive assertion that they are better, worthier, more holy, than the rest of us… It is, in no uncertain terms, an outward expression of self-aggrandization and bigotry.

At the same time, it is often worn by some women as a not very subtle method of intimidation and aggression towards the greater society.  These women are themselves Islamists who understand perfectly well the fear many have of having Sharia forced upon them by the Islamits:  they wear the veil as an arrogant reminder of the threat they are posing to us all.

So, a woman wearing the ‘Islamic veil’ can either be a victim or an aggressor – either way, I don’t like it!  And that does not even touch on the whole ‘security’ issue, where criminals use the face-veil to disguise their identity…

In other words, I would be very happy never to see anyone hiding their true face!

BUT…

The ends never justify the means.

In fact, the means often undermine and invalidate the end.

I got into a somewhat heated discussion about this with Trupeers over in the comment section of BCF‘s post on this.  I think I was not very clear about it and confused the issue by poorly expressing what I mean.  Still, it helped me ‘distill’ the essence of what I mean better.

My ‘first law of human dynamics’ states that eventually, every law will be abused and stretched into unforeseen ridiculousness.  Therefore, whenever we pass laws, we must consider more than their immediate effect.  It is our responsibility to examine the not-so-obvious implications of any law and to really really foresee any potential ways in which the law could be abused.

THAT is my problem with a law that bans ‘wearing a face-covering veil in public’.

The larger implications:  we are permitting a government to legislate what people may or may not wear in public.  You know, like they do in Iran…

It is always easier to give some power to a government than it is to take it back.   Once we legitimize the practice of governments  legislating and enforcing dress codes, that aspect of our existence will be at the mercy of some  future government’s whims!

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

G20, police behaviour and the ‘split’ on the ‘right’: part 2

July 8, 2010 — xanthippa

In part 1, I pointed out that increasingly, the police have been given two goals which are not always congruent:  that of ‘maintaining public order’ and of ‘upholding the laws’.  And, increasingly (in ‘the West’), the police have been choosing to ‘maintain public peace’ – even at times breaking laws themselves in the process, instead of upholding them.

This has become very clear during the G8/G20 circus downtown Toronto.

Not only were the police given extraordinary powers to ‘maintain public order’ within the designated, fenced-off area, they had usurped even greater powers for themselves.  I use the term ‘usurped’ advisedly, because that is what they did.  The police chief admitted he had intentionally lied about what the powers police had been granted were.

Bill Blair’s justification of the lie is telling: ‘I was trying to keep the criminals out.’

It would appear that in this Police Chief’s view, all the people on the streets of Toronto were to be treated like criminals, until proven otherwise – may be!  Perhaps Chief Blair thought that he was on a crusade:  ‘Arrest them all – God will know his own!’  The police officers under Blair’s command certainly appeared to behave as if they took this adage to their hearts, as they often exercised powers never lawfully granted them – even going well past the police chief’s unlawful claims. (I will return to this later)

Following the ‘event’, the police continued to lie to the public!

The reason for this seems clear:  the evidence of police misconduct had been published and publicized, so the police attempted to magnify the ‘perceived threat’ in order to justify their conduct.  By displaying ‘confiscated weapons’ (some of which were toys – taken from a gamer who made them safe for kids to play with) and lying about what they were and where/how they were ‘confiscated’, the police hoped to portray the ‘protesters’ as a bunch of lawless anarchist thugs who were a threat to every decent human being.  Once this effort succeeded (as it mostly did), they could then dismiss any person who criticized their conduct by tarring her/him with the same brush.

That is a dangerous precedent!

First of all, it is not safe for anyone – law breaker as well as each and every law abiding citizen – to live in a society where the police arbitrarily usurp powers onto themselves and use threats, intimidation, arrests and, yes, violence, while exercising these usurped powers!

Whatever you think about the G8/G20 Toronto thing, just think about the implications of that!

We would live in a society where police are permitted to make the rules ‘on the go’ – and get rid of (through intimidation or arrest) anyone whom they perceive as challenging them…

If you think this is impossible in Canada (or another Western democracy), think again:  a few years ago, a study of downtown Vancouver policing practices documented searches, intimidation and various forms of detention of individuals on the fringes of society (least credible victims…) took place without any official records of the events – without these records, no effective legal action could be taken against the police officers.

Yes, the police were in a difficult situation.  Still…

While the evidence is very circumstantial, the police behaviour captured on video does suggest that at least some of the ‘violent protesters’ were indeed agent provocateurs – a tool which the police in Canada are known to have employed in past protests. (It evens appears that, prior to the G20, a Toronto Police representative was asked directly whether the police will be using agent provocateurs – only to be told that they are unwilling to reveal that type of information.)

I do not wish to get hung up on this agent provocateur thing.  The charges that the police utilized them have been made – along with claims that the worst of the violence and destruction was not committed by the protesters, but rather by the police agents themselves.  While I have seen some circumstantial evidence that lends credence to these claims, I am not yet convinced either way.

Why do I even raise the issue?

The police are in a unique position in our society.  In order to do their job – and do it right – they need people to trust them.  This trust is not a trivial thing – it must be earned, over and over.  Yet, having seen so many videos of police misconduct, having read so many reports of it, I fear this trust has been seriously compromised.

Do I believe all the charges against the police?

No, I don’t.  A few fake videos, perhaps.  A few trumped up charges – I’m willing to entertain that they are not as accurate as the ‘victims’ claim.

But some of the charges of misconduct come from sources I consider reputable (I know some of these people personally and they have earned my trust through their past behaviour).

Yet, I would like to give the police the benefit of the doubt.  And… had the police not been caught in so many lies, it would be easier to believe them…

Even if we completely set aside the issue of the agent provocateurs, there are serious problems with the police failing to enforce the law!  There are numerous videos (including some I linked above) where the police witness violent or destructive behaviour by specific individuals – yet do nothing to stop it by arresting, or even interrupting, the law-breakers!

That is not right.  It is abdication of their duty at best –  actively aiding the law-breakers at worst.

Even if there had not been an ‘over-reaction’ by the police on the Sunday and Monday (the arbitrary-seeming arrests of close to a thousand innocent people as well as all the other reported abuses of their powers), the police behaviour on Saturday, their failure to act and to apply the laws (which, according to some sources, came as ‘an order from above’) would be sufficient to shake the public trust in the police.

Sorry – I truly am sorry that this is so –  but that is the truth!

Oh – and as for labeling all the protesters as violent anarchists, who break the laws and have no respect for private property or the businesses along the protest route:  watch this and weep!  Not all protesters condoned lawless behaviour.  Some protested, hoping to talk sense into the violent thugs in their midst.  Others, like this guy, did more to stop lawless behaviour than the police did!

(Continued in ‘Part 3’)

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 9 Comments »

G20, police behaviour and the ‘split’ on the ‘right’: part 1

July 7, 2010 — xanthippa

All right – this is a difficult issue to tackle.  Still, it is an important one.  So, if I go off on a tangent – please, comment and re-focus me!

The G8/G20 event cost over 1 Billion dollars in ‘security’ costs.  Many people complained – yet, though I thought the figure high, I did not complain because I thought that if the people in positions to know thought the security costs were that hight, I was unwilling to double-guess them.  In no way ought this event have been turned into a showcase for ‘unlawful people’ – if that was going to be the cost of upholding the rule of law, I was willing to pay the bill and not grumble (too much).

I am, if such a thing can be said to exist, a ‘pro-law libertarian’:  it is my deeply held conviction that it is only through the rule of law that our rights can be respected and our liberties can be exercised.

I take a poor view of each and every individual who breaks the laws – even ‘bad laws’ (two ‘wrongs’ do not make a ‘right’), provided citizens have a recourse through their ability to lobby to change or otherwise get rid of ‘bad laws’.  Even living in a totalitarian state, (though young) I thought that leaving everything behind and running away (not so bravely) was preferable to taking the law into my own hands:  it would take a lot, including absence of any other course of action, to get me to break the laws or to condone others to do so.

Having explained my philosophical bend, I also ought to explain my attitude towards the police (and, yes, I am volunteering with the Ottawa police because I think cops ought to be ‘the good guys’).

Police officers occupy a very unique position in our society:  they are the ‘Agents of the State’ whom we entrust with upholding the rule of law in our society.  As such, they occupy a position of trust unlike those of most other people in society:  trust which has to be continuously earned by their behaviour, because the alternative is too terrible to contemplate.  (Yes – I still have the nightmares…)

Unfortunately, ‘the police’ have recently been entrusted with two completely different goals:  one is to ‘uphold the law’, the other is to ‘maintain order’.  These two tasks are not necessarily in ‘extreme’ opposition to each other – but neither are they completely congruous with each other, either!

Example (from the past – to keep the current tempers even):

A large number of militant anti-Israeli protesters sees an Israeli flag in the window of an apartment and threaten to break into the building to get rid of it (presumably looting, or at least ‘damaging’ the building in the process).  The police, ‘in order to maintain public order’, illegally enter the apartment and remove the ‘offensive’ flag in order to appease the mob which is threatening lawless violence.

These individual police officers chose to break the law, in order to ‘maintain public order’, instead of waiting for law-defying individuals to break the laws, then arresting them in order to uphold the laws of the land!

That is only one such example where the police chose to ‘maintain public peace’ rather than to ‘enforce the laws of the land’:  had they enforced the laws, they would have waited for individuals to damage the property, then and only then arrested these individual lawbreakers and brought them to justice.

We have also seen a parallel to this in Canada, when a lone pro-Israeli protester (not breaking any laws) faced a large number of anti-Israel protesters in Alberta:  the police threatened the lone, law-abiding, not-violence-threatening individual with arrest in order to ‘not provoke’ the violence-threatening (and thus law-breaking) mob because the law-abiding man’s ‘presence’ was a ‘provocation’ and thus a threat to ‘public order’.  (Sorry, I can’t find the link – if you can, please, do so in the comments:  yet, this is so common, most of us are aware of many parallel incidents!)

George Jonas (a fellow escapee from a totalitarian police state) phrases his observation of the role the  police in our society are increasingly choosing to play:

‘The only group exhibiting Canadian-style restraint was the police. They cast a calm eye on the pandemonium, took a balanced view and chose no sides between people trying to exercise their rights and bullies trying to prevent them.’

These occurrences are not isolated:  over and over, in much of the ‘free world’, we have seen police preferring to aid law-breakers (who are ‘difficult-to-handle’) in oppressing the population… instead of upholding the laws of the land.

Just consider the going-ons and race-based policing  in Caledonia!!!

So, how does this relate to the G8/G20 situation – and the ‘split’ on the ‘right’?

In how the people usually considered ‘little-c-conservatives’ perceive what happened and how we evaluate the role the police played…

Let me first get a few things off my mind:  it was idiotic to hold the G20 meeting in the middle of downtown of Canada’s largest city.  Ensuring the security of the participants was going to be a nightmare.  It was a situation where just about every possible outcome was going to draw serious – and ‘warranted’ – criticism.  In other words, it was likely to be a ‘no win’ situation…

The police who were entrusted with the task of providing security for this event were in an unenviable position:  ‘ensuring security’ necessarily put them into conflict with their primary role – that of ‘upholding the laws’!

Why?

Because ‘ensuring security’ meant the police were responsible for preventing any law-breaking which would result in ‘breeches of security’ at the summit.

However, the actual and proper role of the police is to uphold the laws:  this means that they are only permitted to intervene AFTER a law has been broken!

How can a person (or collection of persons) possibly prevent a crime – when they are, by law, permitted to intervene only after a crime has been committed?!?!?

(Continued in ‘Part 2’ and ‘Part 3’)

Posted in freedoms, opression, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . 7 Comments »

Why ‘secular laws’ must rank above ‘religious laws’ in every society

June 29, 2010 — xanthippa

Recently, a post I had made a long time ago where I was looking at the definitions and nature of religion received a comment which raised a very important point.  It was something that I had attempted to get across – and failed.  Here, I hope, to remedy this!

Context:  Having used the Jungian definition of ‘religion’, I argued that ‘freedom to practice one’s religion’ must never be given greater weight in our society than ‘secular laws’.

Permit me to recall ‘Xanthippa’s First Law of Human Dynamics‘ -IF there is a potential for ANY law (rule) to be applied IN EXTREME ways – never foreseen when the law was first formulated – eventually, it WILL BE!!!’.  In other words, every potential  law or rule must be subjected to scrutiny of its effects when (and it is a question of when, not if) it will be applied to a ridiculous extreme.

Therefore, in that post, I used an extreme example: ‘If there is a blanket protection for actions based on religious belief, even such extreme acts as ritualized murder would be protected’.

The comment:

‘I cannot agree with your definition of religion. Since I am Catholic, I will use my understanding of it to explain my position. At the core of Catholicism, is the belief that there are some things that, with regards to morality, are objectively wrong- wrong in every time, place, and situation. I believe that you yourself would assent to this, since you already have identified objective moral truths (human sacrifice, polygamy, ritual rape, paedophilia (child-brides), ritual cannibalism, genital mutilation).

Now, it is not enough to believe that human sacrifice is wrong, rather, one must also behave in accordance with that belief. If one does not have the freedom to act in accordance with that belief, of what value is the belief? None. It is nothing but an illusion of freedom which the state allows to placate the people.

The crux of the issue, however, lies in the contradiction between the constitutionally granted “freedom of religion” and the secular law- a contradiction that is only truly resolved if religious belief and secular law both conform to objective moral truth. You seem to assume, though, that secular law is ipso facto closer to objective moral truth and therefore has primacy, but that is a false (and sometimes dangerous) assumption. Our laws were not created in a vacuum, but created by people who drew from their religious beliefs, cultural backgrounds, and own understanding of morality. There is nothing to suggest that they inherently knew better and we should accept their moral code a priori.’

I am not, in any way, shape or form, convinced that there is such a thing as an ‘objective moral truth’.

This does not mean I don’t think some things are wrong.  Yet, I recognize these for judgments based on my observation of the collection of impressions I will, for lack of a better-defined term, call ‘life’.  I would be loath to have pretensions to any absolutes, even if I became convinced ‘absolutes’ could be defined.

First things first….   Sequentially, I suppose.

The commenter self-identifies as a ‘Catholic’ (Roman Catholic Christian, I presume).

He/she then asserts that ‘objective moral truths’ exist, and as a proof cites me that, among other things, ‘ritual cannibalism’ is wrong.  However, where I say these acts cannot be justified by ‘exercising one’s religious freedoms’ IF they contravene the secular laws of the land, the commenter goes further, calling this wrong in every time, place and situation and equating this condemnation with an ‘objective moral truth’.

HOW can a Catholic possibly assert that?

Is it not one of the core beliefs of Catholicism that the priests’ blessing physically transforms a wafer of bread into the actual flesh of Christ, wine into the actual blood of Christ?  Is the consumption of these not part of their worship rituals?

This is, by definition, ritual cannibalism.

Don’t be dismissive of its importance!  Either the person truly believes they are eating Christ’s flesh, or they are heretics to their faith and not a Roman Catholic Christian.  These definitions are not mine…  One cannot possibly be both a practicing Roman Catholic Christian and believe that it is an ‘objective moral truth’ that ‘ritual cannibalism’ is wrong in every time, place and situation – unless one believes their religion demands behaviour contrary to ‘objective moral truths’!

No, I am not trying to pick on the commenter:  rather, I am attempting to illustrate of just how quickly things get muddled when we enter the realm ‘theological principles’ and ‘objective moral truths’…  No society of free people could hope to form effective laws which respect core human rights and freedoms on such a tenuous foundation.

This is precisely why ‘secular laws’ must ‘trump’ religious ones whenever there is a conflict:  ‘secular laws’ do not and must not legislate morality.  To the contrary:  the primary role of secular laws must be the protection of individual rights and freedoms against the oppression by other peoples’ ‘morality’!

Justifying a proposed law by an appeal to ‘morality’ or ‘greater good’ or ‘public interest’ (all of these are the same thing at their core, they just wear different cloaks) should sound our ‘alarm bells’ that something dangerous is afoot and requires close scrutiny.

Why?

Passing laws on these grounds necessarily permits the morality of some to over-rule or abridge the rights of others.  Than, in my never-humble-opinion, is always a bad thing!

The commenter says:

You seem to assume, though, that secular law is ipso facto closer to objective moral truth and therefore has primacy…’

No, not at all.  I am sorry if I gave that impression.  To the contrary!

Secular laws are not created in a vacuum – not even the vacuum of some ‘alternate dimension’ where rule-making deities reside.  Rather, they are a negotiated contract among the citizens of a country how to best keep from infringing on each other’s rights as we strive to coexist and thrive.  It is a living contract, not set in stone, but continuously evolving to reflect the changes in our society – and it must be supreme because by the virtue of accepting citizenship (or residency), one voluntarily chooses to abide by them.  Or, at least, that is what the meaning of accepting citizenship (or residency) ought to imply…

Because it is a negotiated contract of ‘minimum interference’, if you will (OK – let me just say that it ‘ought to be’ as we see laws becoming more and more intrusive and ‘moralistic’….), it will necessarily reflect the moral ideals of the majority of the members of the society.  That is how it should be – provided that the core rights and freedoms of each and every individual are not infringed.

Our laws must permit every person to exercise their rights and freedoms as fully as possible – but not past the point where this activity would violate the rights of another person.  Sort of like that right to swing one’s arms stops just short of hitting someone else’s nose…

In other words, a man – say, my father – must be free to believe (or not) in whatever Gods he wants.  And, he must be free to worship (or not) them as best as he can – but the limit on his freedom to practice his religion must stop short of the right to kill me because I offended his God by wearing the wrong kind of polka-dots on Sunday!

Posted in atheism, freedoms, ignosticism, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »
« Older posts
Newer posts »