Recent Comments
RSS feed
Yes – ‘Section 13’ gets the ax!
June 7, 2012 — xanthippaFor those of you who are unaware of what ‘Section 13’ is: it is the ‘hate speech’ clause in Canada’s Human Rights Act which makes it illegal to say things which have the potential to offend somebody.
‘Section 13’ had been used to stifle free speech to the point where people were handed lifetime bans to even speak to friends about certain topics on which they did not hold ‘politically correct’ views.
‘Section 13’ – and how it was used to silence legitimate criticism – is a big reason why I had started this blog in the first place.
Now, the largest step towards ridding ourselves of this selective gag order has been taken:
‘Canada is freer today than it was yesterday.
The federal government has just voted to repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. While the bill still has to pass a Senate vote, Canadians likely now have permission to speak more freely.’
Awesome!
UPDATE: now, with video…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH9v-jqWGwQ&feature=colike
BCF is on the trail
May 8, 2012 — xanthippaIn the last few (OK, many) years, the only journalists who seem to be doing their jobs are bloggers.
Not all all bloggers, of course, but there are a few shining stars.
BlazingCatFur (BCF) is one of these.
Here are two connected stories he has been uncovering:
One Islamic school (Madrassa) has been preaching hate-speech directed both at Jews and and Muslims of differing denominations. And not the usual ‘hate speech’ which the Human Rights Commissions are persecuting, which is a thinly weiled code for ‘not politically correct speech’. We are talking REAL hate speech…
And, there is always the money trail: when charities get their tax exempt charitable status, they have to open their books to scrutiny, so that everyone can follow their financial trail. When this trail gets a little muddy, BCF just might be there to clear things up!
Tim Hudak in Caledonia on 13th of March, 2012
March 15, 2012 — xanthippaIt starts out pretty ‘vanilla’, but then it gets more colourful…
For those not familiar with Ontario politics: for the last 6 years, the community of Caledonia has been torn apart by violence as a native land claim had led to armed occupation, division of the municipality, violence and police response where law-abiding citizens were arrested for wanting to go home, because this might provoke a violent reaction from armed native occupiers. The non-native residents of Caledonia were not the only victims: as armed ‘warriors’ from across Canada flooded to Caledonia to flex their muscle, the law-abiding citizens of the 5 Nations Reservation were equally victimized as incidents of rape and other violence were swept under the rug while the armed thugs bullied the community…
Mr. Hudak himself is a bit of an enigma…
He is very charismatic in person – that much is undeniable.
Still, the last election was his to lose – and he did lose it, spectacularly.
On the same issue that his predecessor did: religion in schools.
Conservatives in Canada must learn to separate religion from their policies or they will never be trusted by voters enough to be voted into power. Mr. Hudak failed there and handed the despicable McGuinty the election victory.
Still, coming into conflict-riddled Caledonia took a lot of guts – and Hudak has raised my opinion of him both for going there and for what he had said.
Unfortunately, Mr. McHale – the man who has led the fight in Caledonia for equality before the law and against race-based policing – he behaved badly (in my never-humble-opinion).
Perhaps he was disappointed that a politician did not behave like an activist….just like his expectations that Mr. Hudak could rid us of the Ontario Human Rights Commission while he was a leader of the opposition were just a little outside of what was possible. He certainly did not come across as the reasonable warrior for equality whose speech in Ottawa I liked and whom I admired.
Merlin – the vet who was interviewed at the end of the video – he got the measure of the situation just right!
I don’t care, I’m still free. You can’t take the sky from me.
March 2, 2012 — xanthippaA word about freedom of speech on College/University campuses:
That prof is just lucky his kid did not draw a picture of a toy gun…
Warrants? We don’t need no stinking warrants!!!
February 25, 2012 — xanthippaThis is beyond the pale!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7DGAv4IuSc&feature=colike
Yes, Mr. Levant is correct to raise the spectre of Pavlik Morozov: I was certainly taught in school to live up to his example. But that was on the other side of the iron curtain! There is no room for twisted crap like that in our schools now!
Let you be the first to read it!
I have a gun.
I even volunteered in a school, teaching children how to use a gun, just like mine.
A glue gun, that is.
I have a whole bunch of glue sticks in an ammo box I bought at an army surplus store – partly because I like puns and partly because it is efficient.
I also own a tape gun – it makes wrapping presents more efficient.
And I have two staple guns. (OK, one is my hubby’s, but that makes at least half of it mine, no?)
My kids own guns, too!
From the air-zooka (which ‘shoots’ air, if you are not familiar with it) through a marshmallow gun to water guns…
But if I wanted to own a firearm – an actual gun for shooting bullets – I would not feel obligated to tell ‘the state’. Why? Because I believe, to the core of my being, that the Magna Carta gives me the right to carry whatever arms I think I need to protect my person, family and property. Nothing – no law – can, in my never-humble-opinion – abrogate this natural right to protect myself.
It is precisely because I have the right to carry weapons that police has the power to carry weapons: they derive that right from me, and you, and all the other citizens. Since the government acts as our proxy, it cannot do what each and every one of us does not have the right to do, irrespective of the government.
This equation goes both ways: since the state is acting on our behalf, it cannot do anything we are not free to do. Therefore, if some agents of the state do carry firearms, it therefore follows that each and every citizen has that very same right. If we did not have that right, then the government agents would have nowhere to get that right from.
I recognize I am not expressing this eloquently – following is a video that does a much better job of it:
When all the rhetoric is washed away, at its core, this is about self-ownership.
Ending race-based policing in Ontario – let us hope we are one step closer
February 15, 2012 — xanthippaI received an email which I would like to reproduce in its (almost) entirety, because it not only speaks for itself, it also includes the most-important links….and, it does raise a ray of hope!
Here it is, in its (almost) entirety (I only redacted a phone number):
“Barrett credits Gary Mchale and CANACE for keeping the issue alive in the media and in the limelight, suggesting a lot of McHale’s ideas have been ‘pretty good’.” They include having more oversight from the Ontario Ombudsman with respect to the OPP and more protection for whistleblowers in the Police service.
IpperwashPapers.ca
ConservativesAgainstFantino.ca
HelplessByBlatchford.ca
The Shafia murders: victims of multiculturalism and political correctness
January 30, 2012 — xanthippaShafia: the name has now become known worldwide for the horrific murders of 4 of this family’s members by 3 other family members.
Yesterday, the jury returned a verdict over the father/husband, wife/co-wife, and brother/step-son of the victims: GUILTY!
Guilty of 4 counts of first degree murder!
And, while this is bound to be appealed (as such verdicts always are), it is a victory for Canada.
Yes, for Canada.
Because with this trial, we are beginning to shake the wool that has been pulled over our eyes by the social engineers who insist that we, Canadians, ought not to be treated as equals but that our rights and protections should depend solely on what special social collective we happen to be members of.
If you are unfamiliar with the back-story, here is an excellent write-up by Christie Blatchford in the Montreal Gazette:
‘“This verdict sends a very clear message about our Canadian values and the core principles in a free and democratic society that all Canadians enjoy, and even visitors to Canada enjoy,” Laarhuis said.
The “visitors” reference was a kind and graceful nod to Rona Amir Mohammad, Shafia’s unacknowledged other wife.
Unlike the rest of the sprawling clan, she was brought to Canada as a domestic servant and was on a visitor’s visa, its renewal held over her head like a axe ready to fall by her co-wife Yahya and [husband] Shafia.’
‘The parents were called in by school officials a number of times, but Yahya would weep, Shafia would rail furiously, and no action would be taken.
When the school called in child welfare, the same thing would happen: Denials, rage and tears from these affluent parents worked in this country. All their experience with institutional Canada gave them no reason to imagine that a small-city police force wouldn’t be similarly stymied.’
Ruling in the Warman V Fournier Copyright lawsuit
November 1, 2011 — xanthippaCORRECTION: THE FOURNIERS WILL NOT BE BACK IN COURT LATER THIS WEEK. (I was confused by a header from an earlier email – my apologies for the my error.)
(Sad, isn’t is, that I have to specify which of the Warman lawsuits against the Fourniers this is about….)
This is the ruling in the motion to suppress a number of ‘things’ from the Fourniers’ defense statement in the lawsuit Mr. Warman is pursuing against them because he thinks that they have violated his copyright by:
- inline-linking to his image (while he had full control of the image and could have blocked in-line linking)
- not taking down a re-posting 0f an article fast enough after he acquired copyright over that article in an out-of-court settlement
- posting on their site some public documents which quoted the above article
OK, OK – I’ll not stretch the suspense out any longer.
It’s not the whole case – just this motion. But, it means that the trial lawyer will have the ability to weigh all the evidence and decide for her/his own self as to what is relevant and what is not.
So, this is a victory for justice!
Small victory, but victory none-the-less. Especially since Connie Fournier – a non-lawyer – went up against the smooth and charismatic Mr. Katz (without whose extraordinary lawyer skills most of Mr. Warman’s lawsuits would have been summarily dismissed as frivolous – in my never-humble-opinion) and won!!!
In that sense, it is big personal victory for the Fourniers.
Congratulations, Mark and Connie.
P.S. – The Fourniers will be in Federal Court in Ottawa again on Thursday, 3rd of November, 2011.
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 