An interesting speech:
So, when can we leave the UN?!?!?
That whole organization is corrupt to the core…
Recent Comments
RSS feed
Time for Canada to leave the UN
June 7, 2012 — xanthippaI know I’ve said this before, in many ways and in many posts but it is tome for Canada to de-fund and leave the UN altogether. Our membership in this organization filled with theocrats, dictators and other thugs lends it an unearned air of legitimacy and respectability.
Time to get out!
I’m glad that others have begun to speak up as well!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLpHdFP6NoA&feature=colike
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFj8x_fI15A&feature=colike
UN has plans to ‘regulate’ the internet…
June 5, 2012 — xanthippaThis is more than UN’s Agenda 21 which seeks to gain control over parts of nation states through bypassing their legitimate governments (and which Alabama had just banned within its borders), it is an attempt to re-shape the internet to the liking of Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and Iran!
‘ISOC’s Sally Wentworth, senior manager of public policy for the group, warned that the proposals to be considered are not “compatible” with the current open manner in which the Internet is managed.
Vint Cerf, Google’s chief Internet evangelist, co-creator of the TCP/IP protocol, and former chairman of ICANN, said the ITU meeting could lead to “top-down control dictated by governments” that could impact free expression, security, and other important issues..
“The open Internet has never been at a higher risk than it is now,” Cerf said.’
In my never-humble-opinion, it is time to dissolve that toxic tumour upon our society also known as the United Nations!
We need a separation between the UN and Islam
April 19, 2012 — xanthippaWe, in the West, have taken for granted that there should be a separation between The State (government) and religious organizations. This is, in no way, a universal sentiment.
To the contrary: throughout human history, tyrants have relied on religious control over their populace to stay in power. In the dawns of our civilization, we had ‘priest kings’, individuals who held the reins of State and religion firmly within their grasp. Up until quite recently, European monarchies accepted the authority of the Catholic Pope to be the Kingmaker: these mutually supporting tyrannies effectively enslaved the population. It was not until the development of religious plurality in Europe that these shackles were broken and the age of enlightenment and reason brought us the modern era of prosperity and freedom.
It would indeed be difficult to argue that had we not rejected the collusion of State and Religion, we would be enjoying our current standard of living.
Yet, we must never forget that separation of State and Religion is the exception, not the rule in human societies. Even today.
Therein lies the peril in ‘world government’ schemes, like the United Nations.
Because secular governments built on the consitutional democracy principle represent a minority of human population, it would be unreasonable to expect any government which is representative of all the world to reflect this minority trend.
This is why we should not be shocked by UN’s attempts to pass anti-blasphemy laws.
Since religious control over government is the norm, not the exception, it is not surprising that religions from outside the constitutional democracies would be jockeying for control over the UN. And, since they are the only ones in the race, it ought not be surprising that they are indeed succeeding.
Islam, of course, forms the largest ‘block’ in this effort: it really is only a question of time before Sharia will be imposed by the UN on all its member states.
Does this sound too far fetched?
Time to leave the UN – unless it is already too late!
‘The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert’
November 9, 2011 — xanthippaYes – I have just finished reading this book (Kindle version) and would like to say a few words about it.
First, in the name of transparency, I disclose that I am named in the acknowledgments as one of the over 40 citizen auditors whom the book’s author, Donna Laframboise, had recruited to audit the references in various IPCC AR4 chapters in order to verify whether the sources were peer-reviewed scientific journals or other materials. (More on this later.)
Let me start with the conclusion: well worth a read!
It is worth reading regardless of your opinions about global warming and the role humanity does or does not play in it because, contrary to some book reviews, the book does not actually address the science itself. Let me say it again: this book is NOT an examination of the science, nor does it draw any scientific conclusions. Not one!
Rather, this book takes the claims the IPCC (and its members) make about the organization and how it functions and tests them for consistency and validity. As the sub-title of the book says, it is ‘An Expose of the IPCC’. It is a journalistic expose of the process (and its corruption) behind the IPCC repots: exactly the sort of thing that investigative journalist are trained to do.
This is a serious matter: regardless of where your opinions may fall on the science itself, the process through which the IPCC reports – the reports with perhaps the furthest and deepest financial and political implications of our generation – are generated must be transparent and worthy of our trust. It is perhaps even more the interest of the ACC believers that this process is ‘beyond reproach’ – that their Kool-Aid is not tainted, if you will.
What Donna Laframboise has revealed in ‘The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert: An Expose of the IPCC’ is an eye-opener to people who have trusted the IPCC simply because they were told to trust world’s leading scientists.
No, the book is not perfect. There is a number of things that I would have either eliminated or re-phrased or even things I think are important that were not included in the book. For example, she does go on about the Y2K bug in an attempt to parallel the hysteria and I get her aim – yet I think this and similar bits detract, not add to the book. At times, her wording is more colloquial than what appeals to my taste, but that is a minor pick – and what she says, regardless of the style she says it in, is valid.
As for omissions – perhaps the most important one is that while I was checking the references for several of the chapters in AR4 for the Citizen Audit, I noted that a number of the references were not to peer-reviewed journals, but to actual official government policy papers.
To me, this is a big deal.
Yes, she correctly pans the IPCC for using a WWF and Greenpeace pamphlets and ads and press releases as source material – these are clearl not peer-reviewed science, despite the often repeated mantra that the IPCC uses exclusively sources from peer-reviewed scientific publications. Citing these as peer-reviewed science is very problematic and Donna does a great job exposing this.
But that a number of actual government policy papers (from several different national governments as well as from the EU) are the source material on which the IPCC draws its conclusions is, in my never-humble-opinion, just as big (if not even bigger) deal. Precisely because, as she documents in her book, it is governments who nominate people for IPCC participation, inclusion of policy papers by those very same governments demonstrates very clearly the conflicts of interest of many of the people behind the IPCC.
OK – that was my pet peeve. I have to admit, in light of what the book does reveal and how meticulously it documents all of its assertions, it is just a minor niggle.
Perhaps the most praise-worthy aspect of ‘The Delinquent Teenager’ is how meticulously it is researched and documented. I have not seen a hard copy, but the Kindle version (and, I understand, the pdf version) are filled with links to relevant material and almost a quarter of the book is ‘footnotes’. Really. Everything written in this book has been researched and documented beyond anything I have seen – ever. For a fact junkie such as I am, this really makes the case – and proves it.
Different people liked different aspects: here are a few other reviews of the book (this one has copious quotes).
What did I learn from the book that I did not know before?
Two things jump to mind right away:
1. There were no conflict of interest guidelines or rules for the IPCC as late as 2010 – they were deemed unnecessary. This is problematic on its own. However, following a scathing review by IAC, such conflict of interest rules have been done up. Alas, they will not apply to any of the people currently working on the next IPCC report, because, as Rajendra Pachauri who heads the IPCC says, that would not be fair…
It would not ‘be fair’ to expect the IPCC ‘experts’ to adhere to conflict of interest rules?!?!?
2. Donna Laframboise strings together a sequence of events that we should be aware of and supports it with quotes from Rajendra Pachauri and others: the role of the IPCC never was to present an impartial report.
Here is the sequence:
- UN creates INFCCC
- UNFCCC creates a treaty to curb carbon emissions.
- UN creates IPCC to support the UNFCCC and get buy-in from various governments and people around the world.
Let me emphasize this: the IPCC was created specifically to lend ‘scientific’ backing to the claim there is a problem only AFTER the UN had created the solution!
There is more in the book that I learned, but these two things are of such importance, it is difficult to believe any investigative
This is an important book – if you have not done so, please, read it!
Copenhagen Treaty vs. Liberty
December 11, 2009 — xanthippaWhatever we may or may not think (or believe or disbelieve) about the role humans may or may not have played in the warming the Earth has experienced, or the rise in carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, we should all learn all we can about the Copenhagen Treaty.
Because if it is signed, what it says will become the ‘top law’ in the countries that sign it. (Even if it is not signed – that it got ‘this close’ means that its content is significant – and likely to come up again in another form.)
In a democratic country, passing a new law is a long and arduous process: there are all kinds of checks and balances in place in order to make sure that the lawmakers (and the people they represent – and who can vote them out if they misbehave) know what the law says and how it will impact society.
Typically, ‘a bill’ (a proposed law) has to pass a number of public readings (transparency – so ‘everyone’, in theory, is aware of what it says), where the different elected representatives are supposed to examine all its aspects in a thorough and objective (ideally) way, point out any of its potential pitfalls or shortcomings, take account of the public debate about it, suggest amendments and all that. Only after this long process (which OUGHT NOT be shortened, for any reason, not even if Obama says so), if most of the elected representatives think that supporting it is more likely to get them re-elected than not (i.e. the will of ‘the people’) does this ‘bill’ become a ‘law’.
This is really, really important.
Yes, it is annoying and tedious, but important because it is the only mechanism through which the citizens of a democratic can assert their will on what laws govern their land. (Legally, that is…)
Contrast that with the ‘Copenhagen Treaty’.
It is a whole set of laws, rules and regulations which we are told are necessary to ‘slow down the build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere’.
Because the atmosphere is shared by all the people on Earth, any rules or regulations to effectively deal with problems with it must be global. Makes sense, when put that way…
So, the rules and regulations in the Copenhagen Treaty over-rule any laws or constitutions of the countries that sign it. Because these are now ‘global rules’, and take precedence over ‘national laws’.
A country may not opt out (once in), unless the majority of the signatory countries agree to let them.
So, what exactly ARE these laws, rules and regulation?
Unlike the process for passing laws in democratic countries which I described above, a system where the content of a proposed law is open for examination and subject to public debate and scrutiny, we don’t really know the details of this whole set of powerful rules and regulations!
Yesterday, some leaked bits of it showed that it would permit ‘developed’ nations to emit something like twice the CO2 per person than ‘developing’ nations: in other words, ‘developing’ nations would have their development arrested!
They would NOT be allowed to develop! To provide medicine to their people! To build up their civilizations and raise their people’s standard of living!
NOT ALLOWED!
People in the ‘developed nations’ would have to pay huge amounts of money in taxes. These taxes would then be used to keep ‘developing nations’ in a state of perpetual poverty and dependence on the ‘developed nations’!
In other words, the Copenhagen Treaty would force them to be the new slave-class.
So poor, they will be grateful for the little bit of medicine, they’ll readily agree to be part of a new vaccination or new medication study.
So hungry, they will accept any crop-seed – happy to get it and let the agro-businesses collect decades of data on its safety.
And – as horrible as this proposition is – it is just the tip of the proverbial ice-berg.
The even bigger issue is that the only way all the representatives found out about it was THROUGH A LEAK!!!
And, we do NOT KNOW what ELSE is there, that was not leaked…
In other words, the Copenhagen Treaty is a pig-in-a-poke – a pig-in-a-poke that will have the power to over-ride our Constitution and any rights and freedoms it guarantees us.
Regardless of your views on Global Warming: is this a good idea?
Do the ends ever justify the means?
Omar Khadr is NOT a ‘Child Soldier’ – as per UN laws
August 25, 2009 — xanthippaJust 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?
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 