A day in law-law land

April 9, 2010 — xanthippa

Yesterday, 8th of April, 2010, I spent the day at the Ontario Courthouse at 151 Elgin St, downtown Ottawa.

No – I am not in trouble.  At least, not more than the whole thing of ‘breathing’ implies.  Rather, I went to see how the appeal case of ‘Richard Warman vs Personal Privacy and Internet Anonymity’.

I will be writing that up shortly – and posting link to Connie Fournier’s write up of it.  But, I have about 48 pages of notes, so it’ll take me a while to write it up (most of that time will be spent in trying to decipher my handwriting).

This post is called  ‘A day in law-law land’ not because the case itself is not meritorious, nor because it was not argued well.  It was the ‘getting there’ that felt like being in one of those weird Kafkaesque dreams….much of it due to my unpreparedness, I’m sure, but also because I am so very unfamiliar with he mechanics of how a courthouse operates.

After packing my ‘little ones’ (OK – they are taller than I am) off to school, I headed downtown, to the heart of the City of Ottawa, to witness our legal future being made.  In my never-humble-opinion, this is a very important case because it is in the intersection of several really, really important issues which our society really needs to ‘figure out’ how to ‘deal with’:  privacy issues, freedom of the internet, freedom of speech.

You know, the biggies!

So I figured that I would have no problem figuring out where ‘the case’ was:  just follow the throngs of reporters and TV crews and all that!

Since the Courthouse is right next to the Ottawa City Hall, and since the Ottawa City Hall is -by far – the cheapest place in downtown Ottawa to park (it cost me just $12.00 for the whole day!), I parked there.  But, it meant that I entered the Courhouse through a door in the back, not the main entrance.  People stood all around, smiling so as not to look nervous – or just giving up and looking grim.

Lots of people were marching around in a self-assured way,  some pulling little suitcases on wheels.  You know, sort of like pilots and stewards/stewardesses do – but without the smiles.  Since we were nowhere near an airport, I figured that there had to be another purpose to this and resolved to devote some of my time to observing it further in the hope of figuring it out.  But not now – now I had to find the courtroom where this appeal case was being heard, in the hopes of getting there early enough to be able to squeeze in, get one of the last available seats in the courtroom…

No throngs of reporters in sight….

So, I started to walk around – I was bound to see them somewhere!

After wandering about for about 10 minutes, I still did not see any gaggles of reporters.  Nor any information booths – I’d been on the lookout for these for the last 7 minutes or so, too:   just in case.

Circling back to the main entrance, I began to suspect that the big desk with huge signs that people with disabilities ought to go talk to them there to get help might, perhaps, also double as an information desk.  So I approached it, hoping they would tell me where to go.

Taking a look at my walking cane, they started to want to help me with ‘accessibility’…  Now, OK, I was walking with a cane, but my issue was not ‘accessibility’, it was trying to find out where it was I wanted to ‘access’!

After claiming ignorance of any ‘Richard Warman vs. Personal Privacy and Internet Anonymity’ case, they offered me a list of the day’s schedule:  it listed times, court room numbers and the names of the judges who will be doing the judging in those rooms.  Not the names of the cases….

I did not know the names of the judges!

It was about then that I began to notice the beautiful architecture of the Courthouse – and just how much it looked like the descriptions of The Castle!

Any and all descriptions of the case I was looking for drew nothing more than blank stares…until one of the guys picked up on a clue:  did I say this was ‘an appeal’?  Yes?  Well, then I had to go down the hall to the right and sign in at kiosk #4.  That way!

All right – I guess it is a security measure.  Makes sense.

I followed the vague wave of the arm and, at the end of the hallway, there truly was a kiosk#4.  It was one side of a counter which sort of intruded into an area of cubicles:  I was on the ‘halway’ side of the counter.  On the ‘cubicle’ side, there was a lady searching through a bankers’ box of papers, another lady typing busily on her keyboard, a distracted looking person (also female, I think) dejectedly rushing around with a bunch of files clutched tightly to her chest…..

After standing at the counter for about 4 minutes, another person – this one young, male and smiling – appeared from the bowels of the cubicles and actually acknowledged that I was standing there.  After he finished his conversation with someone invisible from my vantage point, he came over to see what I wanted.

He was very nice.  Why would I think I needed to sign in?  He obviously thought me only partly ‘there’, if I thought I needed to sign in….  But, at least he did know that there was some sort of an appeal being heard that day.  He consulted his paperwork and directed me to courtroom #37.  He was really rather nice.

Now I regretted that when I wandered around earlier, I was only looking at ‘people’ and looking for crowds instead of paying attention to the numbers of the courtrooms I was passing by.  I had no idea where #37 was!  So, I wandered about some more….

Finally, I gave up and went back to the ‘information desk’.  They already suspected my ‘disability’ was not limited to the cane bt that I probably also had ‘diminished capability’ – explaining to me that courtroom #37 was on the third floor…

Makes sense – of course!

Now my forehead was hurting, too.

The Courthouse is really beautiful.  Built in the ‘open-middle-to-to-give-an-air-of-grandeur’ style.  Lots of skylights light up the spacious halls.  Very pretty.

The elevators are all glass – the back side exposed to the brightly lit, multi-story open area.  To access them, one has to sneak into the dark narrow hallway behind the information desk.  So I did – and was on my way to courtroom #37!

Disappointment!

I must have bumbled around so long, everyone must already be in the courtroom and these 3-4 people left out front must mean there are no seats left!

But, no – the courtroom is locked, nobody inside.

The people in front have never heard of Richard Warman.

My heart dropped.

Leave me a simple task, like showing up at the Courthouse to see the wheels of justice in motion – and I can’t even do that!

There were a lot of people in the room next to courtroom #37 – so I explored.  It was the ‘jury-duty-call-up’ room.

As I was preparing to leave, I noticed that two of the people who rode up in the elevator with me (and whom I saw walking purposefully towards some goal during a few different points in my adventure – one was even pulling one of them little suitcase thingies on wheels) were walking towards a small group of people…. Hey!  One of these people is Mark Fournier!  And there’s Connie!

YES!

I FOUND IT!!!

I asked Mark and Connie to pose for a photo.

Did you know taking pictures in the courthouse is forbidden?

My day in law-law land was off to a great start!

Posted in freedoms, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , . 5 Comments »

If we don’t stand up for our right to be offended…

April 7, 2010 — xanthippa

In Canada, we have freedom of speech!

At least, that is what our Constitution says….though many bureaucrats, apartchiks and pseudo-activists would like us to believe otherwise.   Don’t let them fool you!

…because each and every one of us has ‘the right to BE OFFENDED’ !!!

Why?

‘Being offended’ is a very human, emotional, natural reaction!

Nobody, truly nobody, has the right to dictate to you what you may – or may not – be offended by!

However, if we permit the government to silence speech that ‘offends’ some people, it paves the road for the government to not only regulate speech, but to also dictate what we MAY – or MAY NOT – be offended by!

Yes – if we permit the government to ban speech which ‘offends’ – or, as the abominable Section 13 puts it, ‘IS LIKELY TO OFFEND’ – we are, in a very real sense, permitting the government to regulate both our speech and our emotional reactions to ‘stuff’!

Think about it – it is the logical extension:  if the government regulates speech and ‘protects’ you from anything ‘bad’ which ‘might be likely to’ generate negative feelings of any kind – then you no longer have the right to ‘be offended’ by this ‘sanitized’ speech….  After all, it has been ‘filtered’ in the most rigorous manner to remove all ‘offensive’ things – so, if it is spoken, it cannot possibly cause you to react in a negative manner, to cause negative feelings in you!

If the message is ‘fine’ (approved), and you still react negatively to it, feel bad or – get offended by it – the  there has GOT to be something wrong with YOU!

….nothing a re-education camp ‘sensitivity training’ could not fix!

All ‘pubic entertainment’ – as well as ‘political discourse’ – might just be limited to ‘acts’ like this:

P.S. – This is NOT a diss at the Arrogant Worms –  they have enough ‘bits’ that would also be banned.  This one simply demonstrates ‘the limits’ of my point…

Posted in freedoms, human nature, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Machette attack on Jewish students – in Ottawa!

April 5, 2010 — xanthippa

Update:  the attack occurred not in downtown Ottawa, but just on the other side of the Ottawa river in Ottawa’s twin city, the Gatineau, PQ.  This area is still within sight (and walking distance) of both the Supreme Court of Canada and the Parliament buildings. BCF has the Michael Coren interview with Nick Bergamini.

Nick Bergamini is a student at Carleton University and active in student government.

According to his facebook page:

…

“Quickly, we both responded that yes we were Zionists. All of a sudden we were surrounded by 10-15 men who began to shout at us in Arabic. We tried to back out and run away. All of a sudden, I was struck in the back of the head. I’m not sure if it was a fist, a rock or a pipe but it left me dazed and bleeding.

We quickly ran back to the bar and stood beside the bouncers. The crowd of anti-Israel thugs dispersed.

About 10 minutes later, assuming that it was safe, we began to walk home. We were walking through a parking lot when a car pulled up next to us. The driver shouted “I fucking hit you, you Jew.”

We stood our ground. Quickly we had three guys around us. We were able to push them away. As the cowards that they were, they retreated. Then I heard, shouts of “Open the trunk!” One of them opened the trunk and I saw glistening in the street light the reflection of a 12-inch machete. “Fucking Jew,” he shouted. I began to run for my life as he was only 5 or 6 feet away.

I ran, and as I looked back, I saw the long shiny blade slicing through the air about 12 inches from my neck. I ran as fast I could and, thanks to my grade 9 track and field training, got away.

People who were around the scene said the blade came within inches of my neck.

Read his whole post here!

Is this really happening here, in Canada?

Here, in Ottawa, Canada’s Capital?

Here, right downtown Ottawa – just blocks from our Parliament and the Supreme Court of Canada?

Now?

Yes, that would indeed appear to be true!

Question:  This happened in the club district, downtown Ottawa.  At 1:45 in the morning, this is hardly an abandoned or ‘quiet’ part of town – being so close to the University of Ottawa campus, there are usually quite a few people about!  The Ottawa Police usually have a ‘presence’.  It’s their job!

So, I am curious to hear their side of the story:  how come these guys are not arrested yet?

OK – so Nick Bergamini and Mark Klibanov got themselves beaten up and bloodied.

OK – so some guys with a machete chased them, trying hard to decapitate them.

Goodness knows, we all loose our tempers, some times!

A much more dangerous crime occurred in Ottawa that night!

They were engaging in hate speech – right in the middle of a crowd!

Do you realize just how many people might have had their feelings hurt?

How many might have been traumatized: by hearing there were 2 Zionists in our midst?

How do the police expect us to be able to sleep tonight?  We are a city – nay, a community – traumatized!

After all, we ran that Zionist Ann Coulter right out of town (yes, she may be an anti-Semite, but she is still a Zionist!)! Yeah, the Ottawa Police made sure she was not permitted to speak!

We thought we could relax a little…..

But no!  Now these two Zionists crop up!  Right in the middle of the City!

They even freely and openly admit they are Zionists – and through the admission of their very existence, they traumatize a whole crowd!

Just think of those poor thugs – they must really have had their feelings hurt!  They were so traumatized, they got their machete out and went after the Zionists!

This is really, really terrible!  These two Zionists have provoked these poor guys so much, they might never calm down from it and suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder for the rest of their lives.

Yet, Nick is obviously still free to write this up for his facebook page!  Writing down all this self-incriminating evidence – how he admitted openly that he was indeed a Zionist!

So – how long do YOU think it’ll take the Ottawa Police to arrest Nick Bergamini and Mark Klibanov for their hateful speech!?!?!

And the Ottawa Police have still not arrested them… Sheeeeesh!!!

Hat tip:  Blazing Catfur

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

Chair of Ottawa Police Services Board: “It’s not our job to ‘police’!”

April 1, 2010 — xanthippa

Last week, I sent this email to the Mayor of Ottawa, my Councilor and the Head of the Ottawa Police Services Board, expressing my dissatisfaction with the failure of Ottawa Police to police the demonstration protesting Ann Coulter’s appearance.  This failure to police was so severe that, at the ‘strong suggestion’ of the Ottawa Police, the event was canceled.

My main point of was that it is inappropriate for the police in general, and Ottawa Police in particular, to dictate (through either direct action or through inaction) who does or does not have the freedom of speech!

Mr. El-Chantiry – the Chair of Ottawa Police Services Board – was the only one to reply.  Here is his response – in full:

Hi Ms. Belaire,

This event was not cancelled by the Ottawa Police. This was a University of Ottawa event. Please contact them for clarification.

Regards,

Eli El-Chantiry

Chair, Ottawa Police Services Board

Councillor, West Carleton-March

http://www.Ward5Eli.com

Here is my reply to Mr. El-Chantiry:

Dear Mr. El-Chantiry,

thank you for your prompt – if brief – reply to my letter of concern. I will be posting it on my blog.

It has now been a full week and neither Mr. O’Brien, the Mayor, nor my Councilor, Mr. Hunter, have replied. So, I do appreciate that you, sir, do care!

Still, your letter did not address my concern…

If my poor wording had misled you into thinking I was complaining about insufficient security at the University of Ottawa event where Ann Coulter had been invited to speak, I apologize and clarify: the University of Ottawa did indeed provide sufficient security to ensure the people attending the event (all of whom had to pre-register) did not breech any laws or bylaws. No problems or complaints there.

It was regarding the failure to provide sufficient ‘supervision’ and/or security at two additional events – both protest demonstrations (one opposing, one supporting Ann Coulter’s right to speak) – that my complaint is about.  Neither of these two outdoor demonstrations were organized by Ann Coulter, her sponsors or the University of Ottawa.

This would be comparable to, say, you hiring an entertainer to come to your home for your child’s birthday party….and, for some reason, this entertainer had earned the wrath of some people who gathered outside your home to protest this entertainer’s presence. Would it be your responsibility to provide the ‘supervision’ and ‘security’ at the protest gathering outside your home, against your will?

Your response would suggest that yes, it would be the homeowner (or the event’s organizer) – not the protest’s organizer – who is responsible…

With whom does the responsibility really lie?

From the official City of Ottawa website (the emphasis is mine):

Definition: For our purposes, a demonstration is a spontaneous or planned collection of people using the road allowance as a place to express an opinion. This type of event can be stationary (confined to a specific location) or one which moves from one point to another (commonly referred to as a “march”). Both types of demonstrations are subject to the criteria outlined in this section.

This seems clear enough: both of the protest demonstrations were indeed ‘demonstrations’, as defined by the City of Ottawa. As such, they were subject to very specific rules and regulations.

The City of Ottawa imposes very significant limitations (I might even argue these rules and restrictions are ‘unreasonable’ and ‘counter to common-sense’ – but, as long as they are the law of this land, we must all abide by them… ) on both organized and spontaneous demonstrations. Through imposing these limitations, the City of Ottawa unequivocally claims the sole jurisdiction – and thus responsibility for – over all outdoor demonstrations – for the Ottawa Police alone!

Point #9 of the bylaws governing ‘demonstrations’ states:

    Police supervision is required for a demonstration. It is the responsibility of the demonstration organizer to contact the Ottawa Police to arrange for supervision. The demonstration organizer may be responsible for any costs associated with the provision of this service.

Let’s take it one sentence at a time:

Police supervision is required for a demonstration.

This one single sentence states that it is the police – the Ottawa Police – who has the sole responsibility for the ‘supervision’ of any and every ‘demonstration’ within the City of Ottawa.

What is more, this one sentence also quite unequivocally denies the University of Ottawa the right – yes, the very right – to ‘supervise’ any ‘demonstrations’ which take place outside the walls of its buildings!

This one sentence, Mr. El-Chantiry, also puts the failure to provide adequate security at these ‘demonstrations’ squarely onto the shoulders of Ottawa Police – the civilian oversight board of which you, sir, are the chair!

If this is insufficient to convince you, let us consider the next sentence of point #9 of the City of Ottawa bylaw:

It is the responsibility of the demonstration organizer to contact the Ottawa Police to arrange for supervision.

If nothing else, this clearly states it is the organizers of the demonstration and the police – not the organizers of the event which sparked it – who are responsible for the ‘security’ at the demonstration!  And, it places the responsibility solely onto the Ottawa Police.

On the night of the ‘Ann Coulter’ fiasco at Ottawa University, the Ottawa Police were either unable or unwilling to fulfill their part of our social contract.  Therefore, it is essential that the Ottawa Police Services Board investigates this failure in governance and ensures that it does not occur again.

What is even worse, the context in which this happened – forcing the cancellation of a speech by a speaker whose views are known to be unpopular with many labour unions, including the one Ottawa Police officers belong to – opens the Ottawa Police to charges of ‘selective policing’ to further the political interests of their labour union.  I very much hope this is not so!  Still, this issue must also be thoroughly investigated, if only to remove the cloud of suspicion which is currently marring the reputation of the Ottawa Police even more that the simple failure to act did.

Mr. El-Chantiry,  please, find out what happened, and let me know.  Fix the problems – and restore the good reputation of the Ottawa Police!

Sincerely yours,

Alexandra Belaire

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

Is a Canadain Government agent attempting to ‘influence’ a court?

March 17, 2010 — xanthippa

Read it and weep…

When I first read this – that the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) is retaining a lawyer who is attempting to intervene in a private lawsuit between two citizens, and that the CHRC may have been giving quite a lot of legal advice to only one of the parties in the lawsuit, making us the taxpayers pick up the tab, I was angry.  And, I started to write this up as exactly that.

Ezra Levant exercises his freedom of speech to ridicule another lawyer, Mr. Vigna.  Mr. Vigna sues Mr. Levant for damages to his reputation.  A court will decide whether the line between ‘fair comment’ and ‘slander/libel’ has been crossed:  and so it should be.  The CHRC ought to butt out and it is wrong of it to meddle and to pursue its vendetta against Mr. Levant simply because he dared to stand up to them.

In other words, I was angry – but focused on this  ‘Serene Queen‘  case.

But, the more I thought about it…

The CHRC is an arm of the government.   As such, any lawyer retained by the CHRC and acting on the CHRCs behalf is, legally speaking, an agent of the state.

Now – IF I understand this correctly – this agent of the state has just disregarded proper legal procedures (not filing for an intervenor status prior to the case and therefore being bound to give the defender access to what they will argue, so the defender can prepare a defense) and has inserted herself into the proceedings, approached the judge and attempted to influence the course of the court case!

Please, consider the implications!

An agent of the  state can influence the courts, without following proper legal procedures!

Is this not a thing that only happens in states so corrupt that there is collusion between the courts and the government?

Our judiciary is there as a check on the power of the government – to ensure the government is not able to circumvent the constitution and rob citizens of their rights and freedoms.  Is it  not?  I am not a lawyer, but, this is what we were taught in our civics class…

So, for the government agent to be able to CIRCUMVENT follow proper law and procedures and all that, and INFLUENCE A JUDG in case where the government is not an interested party (as in, they are not doing either the suing or the defending) – that is a really, really dangerous thing!

This is much bigger than just some government agency wasting taxpayer dollars.

This could very well constitute an attempt by the government (through this agent) to corrupt our courts!

As such, I think we need an immediate police investigation of this!

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

Genetic Modification: What defines you as ‘human’?

March 17, 2010 — xanthippa

This is a discussion we really, really ought to have had long before we developed the technology to do this.

It is not a good situation when ‘public debate’ – for whatever reasons, be it cultural, religious or just because it is easier to control an ignorant population – does not keep up with our technological abilities.

This all comes down to the whole ‘knowledge’ versus ‘wisdom’ thing…

What prompted this?

We have long been served plant-foods which contain artificially spliced in genes from other plants – or, possibly, animals.  And, we are not permitted to know (legally) what is what.  Now, we are about to be presented with meat which contains the genes of several animals…. (H/T: BCF)

We may know what we are doing – technologically.  But, do we understand what we are doing, both morally and legally?

* * *

We can no longer even agree on what defines ‘male’ versus ‘female’.

Really – do think about it.

It used to be easy:  the external presentation was sufficient.  And, any hermaphrodites were either so successful at passing themselves as one or the other sex that the question was really mute.  Even that really, really weird case in some isolated pacific islands where ‘every generation’,  some ‘clearly female children’ would, during puberty, develop into males.  To the islanders, it was clear:  while the child ‘appeared’ female, it was ‘a female’.  When the external presentation changed and the child began to look like a man, the (now) youth became ‘a male’!

But, now….

It is no longer so simple!

At first, it looked like our scientific knowledge actually simplified things:  females have two X chromosomes while males have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome.  Simple, right?

Except that….

Back in the late 1980’s, we learned that there are many men who have the required XY combination – plus another X chromosome!  Sometimes, as many as 5 or more ‘scrunched’ looking X chromosomes were found!  (Not important here, but they also found that the men with the extra ‘scrunched’ X chromosomes had a propensity for becoming very, very violent criminals.)

The question then becomes:  is a person with two X chromosomes legally female?

Or, is the presence of a Y chromosome that which defines a person as ‘male’?

We never really had that public debate….when we learned that one’s self-perception as ‘male’ or ‘female’ is set by specific hormones affecting our brain development while we are still fetuses!  If a particular chemical gets released during a very specific point of our fetal development, we will think of our selves as ‘male’.  If it does not get released – or gets released late, or in too small amounts, we self-perceive as ‘female’, regardless of our genetic makeup or our sexual orientation!

Then we learned how to perform ‘sex change’  operations….

…which opened a whole new debate!

If a person is born female – double X chromosomes – and undergoes a sex-change operation, that person is now legally male:  regardless of ‘genetic makeup’.  So, we are back to ‘external presentation’ as being the key defining element.

Except for the case of Caster Semenya…

(Aside:  this case would be mute if we did not practice strict sexual apartheid in sports – another issue we should really, really take a look at … but that is not the focus of this post.)

What I am trying to point out is that where  ‘male’ and ‘female’ used to be defined easily (more or less), using ‘common sense’, the scientific advances we have led to technology which muddles the debate, to the point where different countries around the world have irreconcilably different legal definitions of ‘maleness’ and ‘femaleness’!

* * *

Still, this is a minor debate compared to the ‘what defines ‘humanness” debate!

In my never-humble-opinion, this debate is more charged with religious pitfalls than just about anything else!  After, all, the whole ‘abortion’ debate is only a sub-section of this greater debate of  ‘where’ we draw the legal – as well as moral, as it is wrong to legislate morality, so the two ought not necessarily be the same – line of what defines who/what is or is not human!

(This is NOT meant to be an ‘abortion debate’ –  please, don’t turn it into one!  I only mentioned it because I wanted to underlie both  just how important and charged this debate is ….and how bizarre it is that we are NOT having this ‘greater’ public debate!)

For many years, I had a neighbour whose daughter was born missing a pair of chromosomes.  Still, she was completely human!  Disabled, yes.  But, she WAS a human being!

Yet, because she was missing two whole chromosomes, she was genetically more different from ‘average human’ than most primates are….and we certainly don’t consider THEM human!  ALL primates are used as ‘live meat’ – without any regard to anything else – in all the vaccination-producing and other ‘medical’ labs in the world!

So, what defines YOU as ‘human’?

Just how much genetic damage and/or mutation do you have to suffer before you and your children  are no longer defined as ‘human’?  Legally or morally?

We share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees – yet, legally, they are ‘live meat’.

And people missing  way more than 2% of human DNA, like my ex-neighbour,  are still ‘human’!

This is a really, really important public debate we ought to be having now!  OK – we should have been having it long ago….  Still, delaying it now is dangerous to the very core of our society!

Why?

Because now that we have the technical ability to swap genes between species, we are putting our ability into practice without having defined how we will ‘consider’ the ‘results’!

We can take genetic material from one species, splice it into another – and have the ‘spliced’ genes passed on to the next generation!

And,  we have not had the public discussion about this.  About what makes one species unique – and how that uniqueness is or is not affected by splicing in genes from another species!

Yes, this has been going on for a long time.  Animal genes were spliced into plant genes, genes from one animal are being spliced into another – we have the technical ability!  Yet, we have not really – really – had the public debate about it…

Oh, sure – we have talked about ‘Franken foods’!  About plants which have been genetically modified in one way or another.  Still, much of the  public debate has been stifled – and, perhaps more ominously, there is actual legislation that forbids produce labels which would identify whether the food one is about to purchase has – or has not – been genetically modified!

WHY?

“To prevent  prejudice against genetically modified foods!’ – we are told…

No – I don’t mean to get into weird conspiracy theories here.  I think the answer is very simple:  money.  If a genetic manipulation is financially beneficial to the ‘genetic manipulator’, that ‘genetic manipulator’ will consider investing in ‘product-favourable legislation’ to be no less important a component of their investment in ‘bringing the product to market’ as  ‘scientific research’  how to do it actually is.  That is not a ‘conspiracy theory’ – that is simply ‘good business sense’.

Again – the mechanics of this are not the point of this post.  Let’s just accept the current state of things as they are now – not as they ‘ought to be’ – and get to the greater issue.

Just how MUCH genetic material from one species does a living organism have to contain (or be missing) before it is legally considered (or no longer considered) a member of a particular species?

We do now have mice which have had ‘human breast cancer’ genes spliced in – and pass them on to their offspring.  That means that human genes (OK – ‘broken’ human genes, but human genes none-the-less) are present in sentient beings which do not enjoy any of the rights and freedoms of fully-human beings.  Just how MUCH of our ‘human’ DNA should a creature contain before it is ‘human’?

Legally?

Morally?

What about my neighbour, born missing a few chromosomes?  If a child is born with ‘sufficiently large’ genetic disorder, will it no longer have the legal protections of other humans?

* * *

OK – let’s consider the story I linked: ‘ pork’ which contains mouse genes is now being proposed for sale, without any labels informing the customers that they are buying (presumably for consumption) meat which contains both pig and mouse genes.  We also know there are ‘genetically designed’  mice out there, which contain human genes…

And fish are about to enter our food markets which contain ‘beef-genes’…tip of the proverbial iceberg!

How long before we are being served ‘animal meat’ which contains ‘some’ human genetic material?

How MUCH human genetic material does a meat have to contain before it is considered ‘cannibalism’ to consume it?

Will it be illegal for us to even know we are consuming ‘flesh’ which contains ‘some’ human DNA?

What I am trying to say is….before we physically blur the lines between species – something our technology today permits us to do with impunity – we ought to remember that we, humans, are just a species ourselves!

Any ‘genetic pollution’ we permit, any ‘genetic-line-smudging’ we allow, will, necessarily, set a precedent for all ‘species-specific’ blurring of lines – even the lines of the human species.

I do NOT pretend to have any of the answers.  I freely admit I am deeply conflicted on the issue….

Really – we ought to talk about this!

Posted in debate, science, society, technology. Tags: , , , . 4 Comments »

Nigel Farage on the need for ‘Rompuy – dumpy’ and more

March 8, 2010 — xanthippa

By now, most people have probably seen the video of the Brit elected member of European Parliament, Nigel Farage’s lambasting of the unelected President of the European Council, His Holiness Van Rompuy (pronounced ‘rumpy’).  If not, it is available at TheReferencFrame, JustRight, and many others wonderful places.

Farage is being told that he, as the elected official, has no right to criticize Von Rompuy.  Here on Alex Jones (OK – Alex Jones is a bit of a nut, but, every now and then, he does have good interviews), Nigel Farage explains how this is a victory of bureaucracy over democracy:

Part 1

Part 2

And, just to put it into perspective, take a peek at this: “Behind The Big News: Propaganda and the CFR”.  (Hat tip:  TheReferenceFrame.  Lubo Motl said he thought it sounded a bit conspiracy-theorist-like, so he fact-checked it  – it appears to be on the up-and-up.)

Just as it looks like the whole poitical/financial world is going down the toilet, we are being told that to be eco-friendly, we ought to be flushing our loved ones who pass away down the toilet!   (Just imagine the exorcisms we’ll need the next time the Ottawa homes’ basements fill with untreated sewage – once we begin to pour human remains ‘down the drain’!  Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath-water…)

MooseAndSquirrel has the reducing-humans-to-poop-sludge eco-cremation story, along with links to that Global Warming Alarmism classic movie, ‘Soylent Green’ (yes – the reason things are so desperate in movie-dystopia is because of anthropogenic Global Warming!).  Spooky:  the eco-cremation process, as described in M&S’s links, covers people in silk and dissolves them in a liquid…. JUST like in the movie!

It almost makes you wonder if the conspiracy theory nuts are less nutty than we give them credit for…

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

City of Ottawa to English employees: “No Saturdays For You!”

March 4, 2010 — xanthippa

This is just a tiny little example of the malaise which is crippling the City of Ottawa!

The ‘French Languages Services Branch’ decided that right now, when the City of Ottawa is so broke it cannot prevent raw sewage from flooding people’s basements, over and over… when the City of Ottawa is unable to pay the upkeep on municipal buildings so that some  have become safety hazards (like, say, the stands as the Landsdowne Park that had to be pulled down)…..when the City of Ottawa has no funds to maintain public housing, turning a deaf eat to senior citizens’ requests to have cockroaches and bed-bugs and, yes, rats (!) exterminated from their meager citty-run housing….

… when all this is happening, the French Languages Services Branch decided that it is time to celebrate the excellence with which they deliver French Language Services to the citizens of Ottawa!

And, to be honest – they are doing as bang-up job!

All the ‘keep out’ notices on condemned buildings are translated into flawless French and high-quality signs with it are posted all over!

And, all the letters requesting that the City bring the housing units it runs up to code are replied to in both English AND most elegant French, telling them that their concern is noted and once there are funds, someone will look into it.  May be…

And all the numerous glossy fliers we receive at our residence from the City of Ottawa, informing us of which services are no longer going to be provided by The City – well, those are also flawless in both their layout and excellent bilingual formulation of the esteem The City holds its  citizens in!

So, you see, they really DO deserve a little ‘pick-me-up’, a ‘pat on the back’, an unmistakable message that their dedication to excellence and best practices is appreciated..

This ‘appreciation’ took shape in a fancy glossy calendar.  Full colour picturesque pictures of scenic Ottawa may have brought the printing costs up a little – about $16,000 for the 2,500 calendars printed (somewhere near $6. 50 per calendar, if my math is not mistaken).  But, it was for the employees – to show appreciation – so it was worth it!

The calendars have arrived.  No, they do not provide any ‘City-of-Ottawa specific’ information – you know, like when seasonal event seasons start and end, or when The City delivers specific services (you know, like which is the 1-morning-a-month when the ‘hazardous materials’ depot (where we are supposed to bring used-up batteries, and so on) is open, and where (it moves around so it is hard to keep up with it) and so on).  It only lists the ‘usual’ information that any glossy, colourful $1.99- over-the-counter calendar does.

And, this 2010 calendar arrived and was handed out before the end of February 2010!  Big cheer for efficiency!!!  Yeeeeeay!

But, there was a tiny, itsy-bitsy mistake.

So tiny, it took days for anyone to notice it.

Well – there was no mistake in French, only in English, so you can understand how the French Services Delivery Branch would not really notice it.  After all, it is not the Bilingual Services Delivery Branch!  And, to the best of my knowledge, there isn’t an English Services Delivery Branch to partner with in collaborative efforts!

So, the days of the week – all through the 12 months – go as:  Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Sunday.

Yes – there is no Saturday!  Not one!

Now, I do not believe it is a sign of systemic anti-Semitism within the French Services Delivery Branch, because I do not believe this was an attempt to expunge or hide or otherwise ‘get rid of’ the Sabbath.  (Still, a simple check of the French Services Delivery Branch’s hiring statistics, to ensure they are fully compliant with the multicultural hiring quotas, is probably warranted – just to make sure!)  ;0)

But, I do think this belies a cultural prejudice:  in Quebec, most calendars adhere to the ‘Mainland European’ standard of starting the week with Monday and ending it with Sunday.  In Ontario – both the English and the Franco-Ontarien adopt the ‘Anglo’ standard of starting the week with Sunday and ending it with Saturday!

Therefore, I suspect that far from being a language issue – this mistake is the fruit of a growing cultural  gap as Franco-Ontarien culture is systematically being eroded and replaced by Quebec culture… because it seems to me that the most likely way this ‘mistake’ would have happened is that a Quebec-culture person, at the last moment, noticed that the week is not ending in ‘Sunday’ and ordered the change!

I, for one, find that highly offensive!

‘Language’ and ‘culture’ may be related, but they are not the same thing!

And, too often – especially here in Canada – we confuse the two.

But that is a grave mistake!  Just look at the rich cultural diversity among different countries that are, say, Spanish-speaking!  The culture of the Dominican Republic is not the same as the culture of, say, Argentina, is it? Yet they share a common language…

Similarly, Franco-Ontariens may speak French, but,they have a very different culture than Quebec does!  Let’s not forget this – ‘French’ and ‘Quebec’ are not synonymous!  Listening to people, it sounds like Franco-Ontariens are as deeply frustrated (if not more) by the Quebec French-language militants who are exporting their discord into Ontario as the rest of us are!

So, I present to you:  this little typo is not a ‘language’ mistake – it is a ‘culture-gap symptom’!

It shows that many of our City of Ottawa employees are less interested in delivering services to us, the citizens, then they are about playing politics with our money!  Spending our tax dollars in sowing cultural discord within the city and building their own bureaucratic empires, funding ‘perks’ for the employees – till there is none left to provide even the most core services!

…all the while The City can’t afford to fix the tons of raw sewage still spilling into the Ottawa River.

How fitting!

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

CO2 gives ‘reflected heat’ a ‘cold shoulder’: Knowledge Drift

February 28, 2010 — xanthippa

Interesting post at Knowledge Drift: ‘Longwave seeks hot date; Cold Shoulder from CO2’

“The wheels are falling off the AGW bus. Resignations, papers withdrawn, admissions of fraudulent analysis, bad data, missing data… and now the Institute of Physicists, the Royal Society of Chemists, and the Royal Statistical Society have all provided official submissions to the British Parliament. They are all saying pretty much the same thing. The research done at the CRU doesn’t come anywhere near close to the standards required to be called science.

…

“The problem with the common explanations of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is that they are both over simplified, and incomplete. For starters, even the term “greenhouse gas” is misleading. …”

From there, it goes into very clear, understandnable explanations of the inconsistencies in the hypothesis of Carbod-doixide forced Global Warming.

It is well worth the read!

Posted in science, scientific fraud, society. Tags: , , , , . 2 Comments »

Salim Mansur: Unveiling the truth behind Sharia

February 22, 2010 — xanthippa

If you read this blog every now and then, you probably know I am not exactly a lover of ‘Sharia’.

Quite to the contrary:  I regard Sharia as an abomination designed to de-empower (if you excuse the expression) women and other segments of society.

Salim Mansur’s colum in the Toronto Sun is right on:

“But the Islamists have succeeded in making the argument that the faith in, and the practice of, Islam is confined by the Shariah, and anything outside of it is non-Islam.

This argument deliberately obscures the fact that the Shariah is a legal system devised under Arab supremacy during the last three centuries of the first millennium and it was based on a reading of the Qur’an that reflected the prejudices of that age in history.”

And – he is absolutely right!

Shariah did not exist at all until several hundred years after the life of Muhammad.

Muhammad – for better or worse – declared that he was the last of the prophets.  That what is said in the Koran IS the whole of Islam.  That no other human  being had the power to ‘interpret’ Islam for others…

Yet, that is exactly what Shariah is:  other men’s interpretation, superimposing their opinions over the Koran!

This is exactly the very thing Muhammad forbade!  If one is to follow the rules prophet Muhammad laid down, really really follow them, they have no choice but to reject Sharia because it is against everything Islam stands for!

OK – I am not as good at expressing it as Salim Mansur is. So, read his column!

H/T: Blazing Catfur

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