Section 13(1) and Aspergers

October 7, 2009 — xanthippa

OK – this is a topic that people who know me have had to listen to me rant on and on and on….

And, I have tried to write it up – and have at least 18 drafts to prove it…

Because… this is something SOOO IMPORTANT that it deserves the most perfectest write up ever!

Because… this shows an internal inconsistency in the Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Code – the ‘Hate Speech’ bit!

It clearly demonstrates that Section 13(1) is in contravention of itself!!!

That, if I my layman’s understanding of our legal system holds, would render the whole thing illegal.  After all, a law may not contravene itself, may it?

Yesterday, I got a comment on my last post, which said exactly the same thing I had been ranting on and on about.  (The comment, not the post – well, the post, too, but that is implied.)

Actually, I read it out loud to my husband, who thought I was reading my words, so close was the sentiment!

Hi Xanthippa.

Your blog has got me thinking… Perhaps we Aspies particularly resent censorship boards like Canada’s because we are used to “saying it like it is”, speaking the truth (as we see it) bluntly and plainly, and not being stopped by thin-skinned people taking offence. Aspies can’t detect _likely_ offence in advance, and if we played it safe and avoided all _possible_ offence, we’d never say anything!Whereas those who support Canada’s state censorship system are probably neurotypicals who are good at treading their way carefully, taking cues from context. They have picked up, for example, that joking about assassinating President Bush is “brave dissent” while joking about assassinating President Obama is “racist hate speech” that will get you visited by the FBI.

Aspies like to have the rules laid out clearly, neutrally and consistently. They/ we don’t like implications, winks and nods, and “It just is, okay?!” So you get someone like Ezra Levant (almost certainly an Aspie) asking why the Emperor has no clothes, why Canada’s censorship rules are applied differently to Christians and Muslims, and a lot of people regard him with distaste: he’s rude, he’s offensive, he’s loud, he’s rocking the boat, he “just doesn’t get it”.

Perhaps Section 13 could be struck down as discriminating on basis of a disability, do you think?

That is exactly correct!  I’ve been ranting on this for years!

*  * *

Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Code is the ‘hate speech’ section which has, lately, been applied to silence people with unpopular views.  The key bit of the wording is that a person is forbidden from communicating anything which could potentially give offense to someone or a group.  No, not ‘just anyone’ – only people who are members of ‘protected groups’.

In other words, it is illegal, in Canada, to communicate anything that might offend people, based on their sex, race, religion, disabilities, sexual orientation, and so on, or stigmatize them, or is likely to increase ‘general hate’ against them.

*  *  *

Now, let us look at  the diagnostic criteria for Asperger’s Syndrome (an Autism-spectrum disorder):

Aspies For Freedom (an Asperger’s support group) lists, among others:

  • Criterion A. Severe and sustained impairment in social interaction
  • Criterion C. The disturbance must cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

About.com tells us that

“The essential features of Asperger’s Disorder are severe and sustained impairment in social interaction…

“…  The disturbance must cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Dr. Leo Kanner, a psychiatrist at Hopkins and a recognized authority on Asperger, wrote in ‘Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry with Practical Neurology’ about ‘Aspergers’:

It is characterised by impairments in reciprocal social interaction and communication

I could go on, in a typically Aspie obsessive manner… but, you get the picture.  Aspies (people with Asperger’s Syndrome usually prefer the nomicker ‘Aspies’ – it is less cumbersome) have a neurological disorder, which prevents us from having ‘normal’ social interactions.

We cannot tell when we are boring you.

We cannot tell when what we are saying is offensive to you.

We cannot tell if people are so fed up with us, they are about to loose their patience and beat us to a bloody pulp, because we have just said something they consider ‘insensitive’ or ‘offensive’.

We think the rest of the world ought to get over themselves and their stupid emotionalism and its burdensome public display and grow up!  (And get some logic, while they’re at it.)

We also lack the ability to ‘believe’.

Oh, we can accept rules – and love to adhere to them scrupulously.  So, Aspies CAN follow religions.  We just can’t believe in them.

We can take some God(s)’s existence ‘as given’ or ‘pre-defined parameter’ – but not as an ‘article of faith’ to be ‘believed’.  There IS a difference.

Despite what some clinicians think, we CAN accept ‘alternate realities’ (make-believe) – as long as it is presented as a concept (not ‘truth’ – but a ‘different game’) and is internally self-consistent.  That  is why we love Spock (the first ‘real’ Aspie character on TV who was not a villain – at least, not intended to be perceived as a villain, even though his appearance followed an ‘evil-man’ archetype) and why we CAN accept alternate reality rules.

But we recognize them to be ‘non-real’.  And – naturally – we say so.  Especially when somebody is wrong and thinks it is ‘real’.

It is our responsibility to educate them!  To do any less would be insulting to them…

We are especially good at pointing out internal inconsistencies – within belief systems, ‘holy’ books (scriptures), the behaviour of clerics vs. the tenets of their faith and all kinds of things like that.  Good and persistent!

And THAT is why so many Aspies earn the wrath of religious people….. because we will never understand why it is OK to correct someone’s misconceptions regarding physic or mathematics, but not regarding bronze-age myths and demonstrable reality.

Actually – any age myths…

With our lack of social skills and inability to ‘take things on faith’ – both conditions are documented as being biologically based and not something we can just change because we want to – we are BOUND to offend a lot of people. Or, so I am told.  Especially with all that religious nonsense!  And I mean NON-SENSE!!!  As defined…

(Is this a good demonstration?  I hope so… I was trying to convey the understanding of our internal thought processes….)

I suppose it would be a fair parallel to describe Aspies as ‘offensiveness-deaf‘!  And, this disability is a well documented, recognized medical condition.

*  *  *

Ah – but our constitution states that no person shall be discriminated against on the grounds of a medical disability!

Would it be legal to pass a law that penalizes people for not standing when the National Anthem is played – even if they were deaf and did not hear it?  Or of they were a paraplegic or otherwise disabled and unable to stand?

Would passing such laws, which punish people because they have a disability, be tolerated if that disability were anything other than Asperger’s Syndrome?

NO!  IT WOULD NOT!

We would not tolerate such laws!  And, our constitution specifically forbids discrimination on these grounds!

Yet, Section 13(1) is a blatant and shameful discrimination against people who have a medical disability which prevents us from knowing when we are likely to ‘give offense’!!!

*  *  *

OK – this is where I tie it all together….bear with me, please, I’m almost there.

1.  Section 13(1) makes it illegal to communicate anything which ‘is likely to offend’ or stigmatize a group or individuals (on ‘protected grounds’), or expose someone to hate.

2.  One such ‘protected ground’ is ‘medical disability’.

3.  Asperger’s syndrome is a medical disability, whose defining characteristic is an inability to successfully socially interact with others:  in other words, rude and offensive behaviour is an invountary symptom (and even a diagnostic criterion) of this medical condition.  As such, Aspies cannot tell if they are ‘likely to offend’, just as deaf people cannot hear and react to sounds, or just like people cannot significantly change the amount of pigment in their skin!  By just existing, we are ‘likely to give offense’!

4.  Therefore, Section 13(1) makes it a criminal offense to live with this specific medical disability!

5.  By criminalizing our very existence, Section 13(1) seriously stigmatizes Aspies, simply because of how we were born! It is very likely that we, as an identifiable and protected group, will be stigmatized and we are likely to be exposed to hate, as a direct result of the existence of Section 13(1).

6.   However, Section 13(1) forbids anyone or anything to stigmatize a group on protected grounds, or expose anyone to hate – and having Asperger’s IS a ‘protected ground’!

7.  That is an internal inconsistency.

8.  Therefore, Section 13(1) is in contravention of itself.

Q.E.D.

    Posted in Aspergers, atheism, ignosticism, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 12 Comments »

    Letter to my Member of Parliament

    October 6, 2009 — xanthippa

    The following is a letter I have just emailed to my MP, and which I have copied to all the members of the Commons Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which is asking some questions about the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its activities:

    Dear Mr. Poilievre!

    When our paths intersected at a public event last summer, I mentioned that Mr. Ezra Levant was facing yet another nuisance lawsuit from a disgraced ex-CHRC employee – so I know that you are aware of and concerned about the current issues with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

    To be honest, I was rather thrilled when the Human Rights Tribunal itself acknowledged that Section 13(1) of the Human Rights code (better known as ‘Thought Crime Section’) was unconstitutional: it gave me hope that the system can indeed be salvaged.

    However, my hope was short lived.

    It seems that even though it has acknowledged that Section 13(1) is unconstitutional, the CHRC is continuing to prosecute other cases under this section!

    How could this be?

    Is it even legal for them to do this?

    How can a government agency prosecute people under a law which the Tribunal has ruled unconstitutional? Perhaps it is because I am not educated in the subject of law, but, just as an ordinary person, this does not seem legal to me. I would love it if you could make some public comment about this (of course, I understand that it cannot be immediate – you need to get the wording right and all that), perhaps an informal comment on a radio station (I have heard you speak on CFRA before), which would explain how this is possible. After all, if I am wondering this, there must be many other people who also do not understand how a government agency can prosecute citizens under a law which had been ruled to be unconstitutional.

    I’m sorry if this comes across too stark or starchy or snarky – it is not meant to. I’m just trying to get to the heart of things quickly.

    Also, there is currently a Commons Committee of Justice and Human Rights: Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn have already answered some questions for this committee, Ms. Jennifer Lynch and others will come to answer some questions, too. (I am cc-ing (is that the proper word?) the members of this committee on this email.) I am certain that there will be many questions the committee members will ask about the substance of Section 13(1) and related issues of freedom of speech, thought, conscience, and so on. That stands to reason.

    And, I have great trust that they will be thorough!

    However, I would also like them to ask about the expenses at the CHRC…

    Not only has it been revealed that during these trying economic times, the CHRC employees have traveled first class on airplanes, stayed at extremely expensive hotels, and so on. They may be employed by an ‘arm’s length agency’ – and ought to stay politically neutral, of course, but they are still all civil servants and they must adhere to all the rules and regulations regarding expenses which all civil servants are bound by. The optics on this have failed.

    I would like to know if it truly is just the optics of the situation (it does look pretty bad that Ms. Lynch can rack up expenses from just one trip which are greater than many Canadians’ annual salary), or if there is a deeper problem there. There has even been a report that Ms. Lynch has not supplied the receipts to support her enormous expense claims, because she thought it was unreasonable and would have interfered with the operation of the CHRC!

    Is this true?

    What is going on?

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

    Questions for Jennifer Lynch

    October 6, 2009 — xanthippa

    Thank you, Blazing Catfur and Jay Currie!

    Jennifer Lynch is the  face of the Medusa…the head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.  And, she will be called to answer some questions about her organization – and her own conduct – by a Parliamentary committee.  (Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn testified yesterday.)

    BCF and JC have been collecting questions to ask the Madamme Chief Commissar.

    Give them some!

    Here is what I’d ask:

    1.  Why did you not submit the receipts for your expenses in a timely manner?

    2.  What have you done to ensure that your travel expenses are, in these trying economic times, minimized?

    3.  Please, submit the evidence that you have researched the cost of accommodations in alternate, cheaper hotel while traveling on the taxpayer’s dollar.

    4.  What procedures have you put into place to ensure that travel and related expenses of other members of your organization are minimized?

    5.  Who, within your organization, oversees travel expenses by the CHRC staff and how do they ensure the costs are minimized?

    (OK – these are financial questions.  But, remember, they got Al Capone for tax evasion…)

    Give them some!

    Here’s where you can send the questions (these are the members of the Parliamentary Committee):

    Conservatives:

    Ed Fast – ed@edfast.ca , faste@parl.gc.ca

    Daniel Petit – PetitD@parl.gc.ca

    Rick Norlock – rick@ricknorlock.ca , Norlock.R@parl.gc.ca

    Rob Moore – MooreR@parl.gc.ca

    Stephen Woodworth – woodworth.s@parl.gc.ca

    Brent Rathgeber – rathgb1@parl.gc.ca , rathgb0@parl.gc.ca

    NDP:

    Joe Comartin – ComarJ@parl.gc.ca

    Bloc Quebecois

    Serge Ménard – MenarSe@parl.gc.ca

    Liberals:

    Brian Murphy – Murphy.B@parl.gc.ca

    Ujjal Dosanjh – Dosanu1a@parl.gc.ca , Dosanjh.U@parl.gc.ca

    Dominic LeBlanc – dominic.leblanc@nb.aibn.com , leblanc.d@parl.gc.ca

    Posted in opression, politics, science. Tags: , , . 4 Comments »

    Will we be complicit in the ‘honour killing’ of Rifqa Bary?

    September 18, 2009 — xanthippa

    Are we about to hand Fathima Rifqa Bary to the custity of people who swore to murder her?

    It would not be unprecedented…

    14-year-old Konerak Sinthasomphone escaped from Jeffrey Dahmer, but  the police officers handed the unfortunate boy back to the sadistic murderer, even while smelling the decomposing body of a previous victim…  The cops even laughed about the whole thing!

    Have we not learned anything?

    Rifqa Bary is a 17-year-old, all-American girl, an honour student, a cheerleader, and a battered child.  Perhaps it was her father’s violence towards her, perhaps it was something else.  The fact remains that Rifqa converted from Islam to Christianity….and, following phone calls and emails to the family from  their local Mosque, her father told her he must kill her to cleanse the family honour of her apostasy.

    Fearing for her life, Rifqa fled from her home in Columbus, Ohio, to Florida. She did all the ‘right’ things:  she removed herself from the most immediate danger and directly asked us – the society – to protect her.  The Florida authorities took charge of Rifqa and her ‘case’.

    Is she being taken seriously?  Or…

    Is she ‘just another rebellious teenager’ – as far as the very people who are supposed to protect her are concerned?

    Is she ‘yet another teen run-away’ who ‘ought to be returned home, into the custody of  her parents?

    Is she simply an ‘attention-seeking teen’ who ought to learn some respect and obey her parents’ rules?

    May be, may be not!

    With her life at stake, the ‘authorities’ ought to take great care to find out. That, however, does not seem likely…

    If you have not heard Rifqa’s story, it is documented here.  Here is a ‘short version‘ from ‘Atlas Shrugs‘ (her version has MANY links with deeper info).

    In a nutshell, in July 2009, the 17-year-old Rifqa got on a bus and fled to Florida.  Now, she is in foster care supervised by the Department of Children and Family in Florida   Juvenile Court Circuit Judge Daniel Dawson, who is presiding over Rifqa’s case, had ordered a report to assess just how much this 17-year-old apostate is in from her family and Mosque, before he decides  Rifqa’s fate.

    So far, not that bad.

    Except that…

    Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) has just released their report – the one which assesses the threat to Rifqa. And, the report is, to say the least, a curious piece of work which could actually endanger this young woman’s life!

    The FDLE report is, in my eyes, unexplicable.  Not only did they not interview most of the witnesses and people most close to Rifqa (whom they interrogated for hours, without her lawyer or any other representative present) and then concluded that there were no people who corroborated her story, not only did they disregard the facebook group which bears her name, and whose over a hundred members are openly calling for her death because she is an apostate…they did not even consider an incident which her father ADMITS TO!  They never asked about the incidents her mother admitted to!

    But, they respectfully interviewed CAIR (an Islamist organization with known ties to terrorist groups – and which is facing many charges of intimidation against moderate Muslims).  The FDLE even allowed CAIR to control their ‘investigation,’ ‘helping them choose’ whom to interview, and how!

    These *#$)(#%$ people actually refused to consider the tradition ‘honour killing’ or how it might relate to Rifqa and her current situation… as in, do her parents and their friends (and co-religionists, along with the prevailing views at the Mosque they take their guidance from) subscribe to the belief that they must kill Rifqa for rejecting Islam and becoming a Christian.

    Why?

    Quoting the report:

    “An investigation into any person, religious or social organization without a specific identifiable criminal predicate is inappropriate.”

    Pardon me?

    Is this what our society has been reduced to?

    Here is ‘Center for Security Policy’s’ review of the FDLE report – the FDLE report is included.

    Now, please, excuse me – I have to go shopping for a burka…


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

    Help an ex-Muslim! Please…

    September 15, 2009 — xanthippa

    Criss says it all:

    The petition is here.

    Posted in atheism, freedoms, immigrants, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

    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 »

    s[ection]. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter

    September 2, 2009 — xanthippa

    Today is a day to celebrate!

    Today, we have seen the first acquittal in  Human Rights trial under Section 13(1) – the ‘Thought Crimes’ section!

    BCF has the scoop:

    Athanosis Hadjis delivered the decision, which included the following:

    …I have also concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The restriction imposed by these provisions is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter.

    YES!!!

    Now that we have a ruling that the infamous Section 13(1) is inconsistent with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the road is paved to having it repealed!

    Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 2 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 »

    Omar Khadr is NOT a ‘Child Soldier’ – as per UN laws

    August 25, 2009 — xanthippa

    Just about everyone has heard of Omar Khard:  the one Canadian languishing in Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

    Most people – whatever their views and opinions are on the circumstances that lead to his current predicament – agree that his situation is quite tragic.  The kid never had a chance to grow up ‘normally’.

    Born into a family which was legally in Canada, emotionally in Pakistan and philosophically in 8th century Arabia, his childhood could not be considered ‘normal’ by any standards.

    Both his parents were religious fanatics (his mother still is, his father gave his life to conduct violent jihad).  He was physically bumped around, from living in the ‘Secular West’ at some points to a Muslim school in Pakistan to terrorist training camps.  His sister was given in marriage at the age of 15 to an Al-Qaeda buddy of her father (the wedding is said to have been attended by Osama himself), his brothers actively conducted violent jihad (not all survived), and so on.

    It really is a sad story.  I can understand why it pulls at all our collective heartstrings!

    Currently, the public debate is focused on what is to be done with young Omar now?

    This is a very, very important decision:  whatever action is taken (on not taken) on behalf of Omar Khadr will set THE legal precedent for future situation that are similar.

    So, let us get it right!

    In order to make the best possible decision, we must objectively examine what Omar Khadr is – and what he is not.

    This is an essential step, because it will define under which circumstances the legal precedent set by the ‘Omar Khadr case’ will be applicable.

    The most common description of Omar Khadr one hears in the MSM (mainstream media) – as well as one often repeated by his defense lawyers – is that Omar Khadr is a ‘Child Soldier’.

    So, let us examine if this is the case:

    Is Omar Khadr a ‘Child Soldier’?

    The definition of ‘Child Soldier’ has two parts:  ‘Child’ and ‘Soldier’.

    First:  is Omar Khadr a ‘Soldier’?

    No, he is not.

    At least, not according to the UN laws on the matter (or any other law I am aware of which defines who is, and who is not, a ‘soldier’).

    The UN laws were written in order to protect the innocent civilians who get in the way of a war first, then the protection of legitimate soldiers second.  And, they are very clear on who is and who is not a ‘soldier’ (again – basic Wikipedia search provides clear answers – but much more material confirming this is easily available through any major search engine…):

    ‘To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a “fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance” and bear arms openly.’

    Omar Khadr, unfortunately, does not satisfy these qualifications.

    Not only was he not a part of a recognized military ‘chain of command’, and not wearing any ‘badges’ or ‘distinctive markings’ that could, even remotely, be construed as ‘uniform’ or ‘fixed distinctive marking’:  the crime he is accused of having committed is against the laws and customs of war.  ( I can expand on this, at length, if asked, in the comments sections.)

    Therefore, Omar Khadr DOES NOT satisfy the qualifications of having the status of a ‘soldier’.  Therefore, he cannot be treated as a ‘soldier’:  a ‘Child Soldier’, an ‘adult soldier’, or any other kind of ‘soldier’.

    But, even if Omar Khadr were a ‘Soldier’:  would he qualify as a ‘Child Soldier’?

    This is a more difficult question – but there is a legal answer!

    Omar Khadr was aged 15 when he was detained by UN troops and when the premeditated murder of a UN non-combatant medic, which he is accused of having committed, occurred.

    Different people mature at different rates:  at 15, some people really are still children while others are quite adult.  Both individual maturing rates and cultural influences are important in determining if a 15-year-old is ‘an adult’ or ‘a child’.  What does the law say?

    Omar Khadr straddled two cultures:

    • In Canada, a 15-year old is, legally, a child.
    • Still, 15-year-olds are able to become emancipated, and legally become adults.
    • Under some circumstances, non-emancipated 15-year-olds are charged with crimes as adults – so the ‘legal precedent’ can be applied both ways:  it is a bit of a legal ‘gray area’ in Canada.
    • In Islamist culture, a 15-year-old is considered to be an adult, without any reservations.
    • The Khadr family certainly considers 15 years of age to be ‘adult’ – that is the age at which their daughter was given away in marriage!

    It is obvious that in his own eyes, as well as according to the culture of his family, Omar Khadr is ‘an adult’. And, in our multicultural society, would it not be offensive to dismiss Omar Khadr’s minority cultural view of his status at that time?

    OK, ok – so, the ‘multiculturalism’ thing is kind of messed up – and we all know it.  Let’s look elsewhere:

    What does the International Human Rights Law have to say on the subject? (The following is a cut-and-paste of what Wikipedia has to say on this:  I usually like to paraphrase things, but I could not hope to make it more clear than they had…)

    International humanitarian law

    According to Article 77.2 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, adopted in 1977:

    ‘The Parties to the conflict shall take all feasible measures in order that children who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, the Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest.’

    Well, that seems rather clear:  once a person has reached the age of 15, he/she cannot be considered to be a ‘Child Soldier’ – even though it’s better to recruit people who are over the age of 18…. 15-year-olds are ‘regular soldiers’!

    Omar Khadr HAD ‘attained the age of fifteen years’ – so he IS, according to international law, ‘regular soldier’!

    In other words, legally, Omar Khadr CANNOT be considered a ‘Child Soldier’, because he is not a ‘Child’:  he would have had to have been FOURTEEN years of age or younger in order to be considered a ‘Child Soldier’!

    OK – so we are nowhere closer to the answer of what Omar Khadr actually is:  but, I have (hopefully) demonstrated that whatever he is, he is NOT a ‘Child Soldier’!

    I know – the facts of the situation are unlikely to affect the direction of the public debate…. I have no illusions about it.  People who point out the laws and the rules are nowhere near as interesting – and nowhere near listened to – as people who play on our emotions…

    But, we MUST TRY, mustn’t we?

    Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . 17 Comments »
    « Older posts
    Newer posts »