Loudmouth Says

More Wailing and Gnashing of Liberal Teeth on Native Poverty

2011-12-11T15:49:00.001-06:00

The Canadian Media and the usual liberal and social democratic whiners are now getting their undies in knots over revelations of extreme poverty at a native [Cree] village of approximately 1,900 persons, on James Bay. The Glop and Pail carried two articles on the situation in the December 10, 2011, edition, bemoaning the horrid conditions and hopeless future for the residents of this remote Indian village, and the alleged 'mistreatment' of the villagers by the Canadian federal government, as well as raising the implication that DeBeers, the mining company currently involved in diamond mining in the area, has not done nearly enough to save the village from its fate.

Aside from jobs made available by DeBeers at its mining operations [since 2008], a few retail or goods distribution businesses and government jobs of one kind or another, there are no processing or manufacturing businesses which can provide employment to the natives, three-quarters of whom are under 35 years. According to Wikipedia, hunting, fishing and trapping are the main occupations, mostly part-time, of most of those who work.

The village has been in its current location for 70 years or so. It has no permanent highway or road access to and from the south, with only a winter ice road and an airport.

As with many similar native reserve communities, the vast bulk of the people have few marketable skills and a low level of education, which, combined with their remote and inaccessible location, make it difficult or impossible to gain employment, even if employment was available.

According to the aforesaid articles, welfare money in one form or another provides the real support for most of the residents.

While the residents complain about the level of help received from the federal government over the years, and blame governments for their plight, the federal government has put over $90 Million into the community since 2006 - nearly $18 Million a year, or $9,000.00 per person per year. This does not include provincial welfare payments, or provincially funded hospital and education costs. Nor does it include the $2 Million per year DeBeers pays in land rent to the Band or the substantial money it has paid either directly to individual natives or, in the last few years, directly to the Band Council and Chief. The company has also spent over $350 Million through community-owned or jointly-owned businesses since the start of construction, amounting to $51 Million in 2011 alone.

Nevertheless, things are as bad as they ever were, according to the Indians themselves and the whining political and media critics. The Indians themselves, either directly or implicitly, have acknowledged severe financial mismanagement. The Band co-manager described things as a 'financial nightmare'. The federal government is reluctant to pour more money into the community before a forensic audit of the communities books is done.

However, the whiners are in full teeth-gnashing and moaning mode. Why is it that so many other people across Canada have left the communities where they were born and traveled far and wide seeking employment, often sending money back home to help those left behind, but the natives of remote, and in the cases of southern reserves, not so remote, but economically unviable communities, must be supported by taxpayers, and even corporations, forever and ever, at levels with which the whiners are comfortable, without the natives ever being required to help themselves?

As one such continually put-upon taxpayer I would like a sensible answer to that question, without more of the guilt trips and false 'mea culpas' so often seen or heard in the media from those self-same whiners.

American Fascism Growing Exponentially

2010-06-04T11:40:00.001-06:00

Runaway fascism (police stateism) is becoming a major problem in the former democracies. In case you have not heard that characterization before, I mean the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Europe, Australia, New Zealand, etc.

It is exemplified by street surveillance cameras, unfettered spying on ordinary citizens not reasonably suspected of engaging in any illegal activities (interception and surveilling of phone and internet communications), seizing and examining computers or other data containing devices at border crossings, and, the latest I have heard of, making it a crime to record instances of police brutality and excesses anywhere, including public places. The fascist actors implicit in this behavior include police, judges, legislators and any others in positions of power and authority. How this differs from the behavior of Hitler's Gestapo or Stalin's secret police, escapes me completely.

The excuse for most of this, and that is all it is, is the fight against terrorism. Under that rubric, the fascists believe they can get away with anything, robbing citizens of their hard-won historical freedoms and rights as part of living in a democracy. That is why I characterize these countries as former democracies. Either these fascist actors are completely contemptuous of our 'former' democratic rights, or they are too stupid to see the impact of their actions of those rights. I think it is a combination of the two.

One of the worst examples is a development in the U.S. discussed thoroughly in the following article:

---------------------------------

In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.

Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.

The legal justification for arresting the "shooter" rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where "no expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.

Massachusetts attorney June Jensen represented Simon Glik who was arrested for such a recording. She explained, "[T]he statute has been misconstrued by Boston police. You could go to the Boston Common and snap pictures and record if you want." Legal scholar and professor Jonathan Turley agrees, "The police are basing this claim on a ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law - requiring all parties to consent to being taped. I have written in the area of surveillance law and can say that this is utter nonsense."

The courts, however, disagree. A few weeks ago, an Illinois judge rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges of not having a peddler's license and peddling in a prohibited area were dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.

In 2001, when Michael Hyde was arrested for criminally violating the state's electronic surveillance law - aka recording a police encounter - the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld his conviction 4-2. In dissent, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall stated, "Citizens have a particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue is that of the police. Their role cannot be performed if citizens must fear criminal reprisals…." (Note: In some states it is the audio alone that makes the recording illegal.)

The selection of "shooters" targeted for prosecution do, indeed, suggest a pattern of either reprisal or an attempt to intimidate.

Glik captured a police action on his cellphone to document what he considered to be excessive force. He was not only arrested, his phone was also seized.

On his website Drew wrote, "Myself and three other artists who documented my actions tried for two months to get the police to arrest me for selling art downtown so we could test the Chicago peddlers license law. The police hesitated for two months because they knew it would mean a federal court case. With this felony charge they are trying to avoid this test and ruin me financially and stain my credibility."

Hyde used his recording to file a harassment complaint against the police. After doing so, he was criminally charged.

In short, recordings that are flattering to the police - an officer kissing a baby or rescuing a dog - will almost certainly not result in prosecution even if they are done without all-party consent. The only people who seem prone to prosecution are those who embarrass or confront the police, or who somehow challenge the law. If true, then the prosecutions are a form of social control to discourage criticism of the police or simple dissent.

A recent arrest in Maryland is both typical and disturbing.

On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III's motorcycle was pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.

The case is disturbing because:

1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents' house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law.

2) Baltimore criminal defense attorney Steven D. Silverman said he had never heard of the Maryland wiretap law being used in this manner. In other words, Maryland has joined the expanding trend of criminalizing the act of recording police abuse. Silverman surmises, "It's more [about] 'contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law."

3) Police spokesman Gregory M. Shipley is defending the pursuit of charges against Graber, denying that it is "some capricious retribution" and citing as justification the particularly egregious nature of Graber's traffic offenses. Oddly, however, the offenses were not so egregious as to cause his arrest before the video appeared.

Almost without exception, police officials have staunchly supported the arresting officers. This argues strongly against the idea that some rogue officers are overreacting or that a few cops have something to hide. "Arrest those who record the police" appears to be official policy, and it's backed by the courts.

Carlos Miller at the Photography Is Not A Crime website offers an explanation: "For the second time in less than a month, a police officer was convicted from evidence obtained from a videotape. The first officer to be convicted was New York City Police Officer Patrick Pogan, who would never have stood trial had it not been for a video posted on Youtube showing him body slamming a bicyclist before charging him with assault on an officer. The second officer to be convicted was Ottawa Hills (Ohio) Police Officer Thomas White, who shot a motorcyclist in the back after a traffic stop, permanently paralyzing the 24-year-old man."

When the police act as though cameras were the equivalent of guns pointed at them, there is a sense in which they are correct. Cameras have become the most effective weapon that ordinary people have to protect against and to expose police abuse. And the police want it to stop.

Happily, even as the practice of arresting "shooters" expands, there are signs of effective backlash. At least one Pennsylvania jurisdiction has reaffirmed the right to video in public places. As part of a settlement with ACLU attorneys who represented an arrested "shooter," the police in Spring City and East Vincent Township adopted a written policy allowing the recording of on-duty policemen.

As journalist Radley Balko declares, "State legislatures should consider passing laws explicitly making it legal to record on-duty law enforcement officials."

Wendy McElroy is the author of several books on anarchism and feminism. She maintains the iconoclastic website ifeminists.net as well as an active blog at wendymcelroy.com.

The author of this post can be contacted at tips@gizmodo.com

Another warning about the danger of Muslim Hegemony Lurking In The Woods

2010-03-04T18:37:00.002-06:00

Hi, again. A friend just sent me an article penned [or clicked] by a worried American - worried about our blindness and refusal to see what is happening around us vis a vis a very real threat to our way of life.

I have edited the article a bit, just to make it flow better and be clearer, and added a few comments of my own, but the gist of the original article is unaltered. I reproduce it here as a way to make it available more broadly to anyone interested in the message.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CAN PRACTISING MUSLIMS BE GOOD AMERICANS or CANADIANS or even DEMOCRATS?

Maybe this is why our American or Canadian Muslims are so quiet, and GENERALLY do not speak out about any terrorist atrocities. Can a good Muslim be a good American or Canadian? To be fair, some Canadian and American Muslims, and some Mullahs have spoken out, but they are a tiny minority.

This question was forwarded to a person who worked and lived in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.

The following is his reply:

Theologically -
no. . . . Because a Muslim's allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia .

Religiously -
no.. . . Because no other religion is accepted by Muslims and their Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256) (Koran)

Scripturally -
no. . . Because a Muslim's allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.

Geographically -
no ... Because a Muslim's allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially -
no... because a Muslim's allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically -
no.. . . Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual Leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan, and because a Muslim state is a theocratic state, ruled by religious authority, not a secular state based on rule of the majority of citizens.

Domestically -
no. .. . Because a Muslim male [who is the only one with political rights] is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34)

Intellectually -
no. . Because Muslims cannot accept the American or Canadian Constitutions, in part, because they come out of a Christian cultural base, and they believe that culture and the Christian Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically
no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran does not allow freedom of religion, freedom of thought or freedom of expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually -
no.. . . Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' The Christian's God is depicted as loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly Father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore, after much study and deliberation.... Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. - - - They obviously cannot be both 'good' Muslims and good Americans or Canadians. Call it what you wish, it's still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better. It is necessary for our countries and our future.

The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.

Footnote: The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within.

Their plan is:

to marry Christians women, change them into Muslims and beat the crap out of them if they do not conform;

have lots kids and raise them as Muslims and populate the world so they can over-ride the rest of the religious sects.

Sweden and Finland are good examples of what is happening as the Muslim world takes over these countries by simple numbers. Most of Africa is now Muslim and this is how it was done. Believe it or not and it might be too late for us. Christian and Jewish families must have at least three children just stay even with them. However, our culture will probably prevent this from happening until it is too late.

It is possible, that within the next twenty years freedom as we know it may not exist. Something to think about.

With the natural catastrophes that are happening in the world today not one Muslim has raised his or her hand to help. When a Muslim rebel or terrorist kills innocent people with their cowardly acts, how many so-called good Muslims have raised their hands or voices in protest. Very few. But do something to them and they are all out in the streets of our major cities protesting what bad guys we are.

The warning signs are there and the Americas had better act fast like they have in Australia.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a woman from Somalia, who was raised as a Muslim, and lived in Somalia, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Holland and the U.S.A., says the same things, and more, in her book, INFIDEL, Free Press [Simon & Schuster] 2007, and describes in horrific detail the evils foisted on women and non-adherents by devout observers of the Muslim faith. Another woman, Irshad Manji, who immigrated to Canada from East Africa, in her book, The Trouble With Islam Today, Vintage Canada Edition, 2005, who now works as a journalist in Vancouver, British Columbia, independently verifies the gist of the horrifying evidence and accounts told by Ms. Ali. These brave Muslims, who have been threatened with death by their fellow Muslims, are not alone in their portrayal of the Muslim faith and its hatred of non-Muslim cultures, but still, the outspoken Muslims who have embraced democracy and freedom are still pittifully few in number.

What Can Be Done?

Integration of Muslim immigrants who are already here must be monitored and required where constitutionally possible. If necessary, change the constitution. Further immigration, applying to the extended families of Muslims as well as to completely new immigrants, must be ended. These are only minimum requirements. Full and quick prosecutions must be instituted to prevent Mullahs and others from spouting anti-Western hate commands and advice to the faithful.

Stop assuming that they are ordinary immigrants who are willing to integrate into Western culture and become democrats and people who respect our cultural and political freedoms. Act accordingly.

Enuf Said: Support Canada or Leave

2010-01-27T17:45:00.001-06:00

Here is an ordinary person's response to the lack of Canadian and US Muslim response to the hate, murder and terrorism so well known in the news. It places the responsibility for a coherent response against terrorism and hatred on the US/Canadian Muslim community and it, at least by implication, says - "If you don't respond supporting the US and Canadian wish for an end to the violence and hatred, then you, by necessary implication, support the violence and hatred."

These thoughts are not unreasonable. Equivocation and ambivalence are equivalent with, at the least, indifference, and at the most, with support for terrorism. Hiding in the woods, or with your heads in the sand, are no longer tolerated responses.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This pilot 'hit the nail' right on the head in his open letter.

The paper stated today that some Muslim doctor is saying we are profiling him because he has been checked three times while getting on an airplane.

The following is a letter from a pilot. This well spoken man, who is a pilot with American Airlines, says what is in his heart, beautifully.... Read, absorb and pass this on.

'YOU WORRY ME!'

By American Airlines Pilot - Captain John Maniscalco

I've been trying to say this since 911, but you worry me. I wish you didn't. I wish when I walked down the streets of this country that I love, that your color and culture still blended with the beautiful human landscape we enjoy in this country. But you don't blend in anymore. I notice you, and it worries me.

I notice you because I can't help it anymore.

People from your homelands, professing to be Muslims, have been attacking and killing my fellow citizens and our friends for more than 20 years now. I don't fully understand their grievances and hate, but I know that nothing can justify the inhumanity of their attacks.

On September 11, ARAB-MUSLIMS hijacked four jetliners in my country. They cut the throats of women in front of children and brutally stabbed to death others. They took control of those planes and crashed them into buildings killing thousands of proud fathers, loving sons, wise grandparents, elegant daughters, best friends, favorite coaches, fearless public servants, and children's mothers.
The Palestinians celebrated, the Iraqis were overjoyed as was most of the Arab world. So, I notice you now. I don't want to be worried. I don't want to be consumed by the same rage and hate and prejudice that has destroyed the soul of these terrorists But I need your help. As a rational American, trying to protect my country and family in an irrational and unsafe world, I must know how to tell the difference between you, and the Arab/Muslim terrorist.

How do I differentiate between the true Arab/Muslim Americans and the Arab/Muslim terrorists in our communities who are attending our schools, enjoying our parks, and living in OUR communities under the protection of OUR constitution, while they plot the next attack that will slaughter these same good neighbors and children?

The events of September 11th changed the answer. It is not my responsibility to determine which of you embraces our great country, with ALL of its religions, with ALL of its different citizens, with all of its faults. It is time for every Arab/Muslim in this country to determine it for me.

I want to know, I demand to know, and I have a right to know, whether or not you love America. Do you pledge allegiance to its flag? Do you proudly display it in front of your house, or on your car? Do you pray in your many daily prayers that Allah will bless this nation, that He will protect and prosper it?

Or do you pray that Allah with destroy it in one of your Jihad's? Are you thankful for the freedom that only this nation affords? A freedom that was paid for by the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots who gave their lives for this country? Are you willing to pr eserve this freedom by also paying the ultimate sacrifice? Do you love America ? If this is your commitment, then I need YOU to start letting ME know about it.

Your Muslim leaders in this nation should be flooding the media at this time with hard facts on your faith, and what hard actions you are taking as a community and as a religion to protect the United States of America. Please, no more benign overtures of regret for the death of the innocent because I worry about who you regard as innocent. No more benign overtures of condemnation for the unprovoked attacks because I worry about what is unprovoked to you. I am
not interested in any more sympathy. I am only interested in
action. What will you do for America - our great country - at this time of crisis, at this time of war?

I want to see Arab-Muslims waving the AMERICAN flag in the streets. I want to hear you chanting 'Allah Bless America ' I want to see young Arab/Muslim men enlisting in the military. I want to see a commitment of money, time, and emotion to the victims of this butchering and to this nation as a whole.

The FBI has a list of over 400 people they want to talk to regarding the WTC attack. Many of these people live and socialize right now in Muslim communities. You know them. You know where they are.

Hand them over to us, now! But I have seen little even approaching this sort of action. Instead I have seen an already closed and secretive community close even tighter. You have disappeared from the streets. You have posted armed security guards at your facilities. You have threatened lawsuits. You have screamed for protection from reprisals.

The very few Arab/Muslim representatives that HAVE appeared in the media were defensive and equivocating.. They seemed more concerned with making sure that the United States proves who was responsible before taking action. They seemed more concerned with protecting their fellow Muslims from violence directed towards them in the United States and abroad than they did with supporting our country and denouncing 'leaders' like Khadafi, Hussein, Farrakhan, and Arafat.

If the true teachings of Islam proclaim tolerance and peace and love for all people, then I want chapter and verse from the Koran and statements from popular Muslim leaders to back it up. What good is it if the teachings in the Koran are good, and pure, and true, when your 'leaders' are teaching fanatical interpretations, terrorism, and intolerance? It matters little how good Islam SHOULD BE if huge numbers of the world's Muslims interpret the teachings of Mohammed incorrectly and adhere to a degenerative form of the religion. A form that has been demonstrated to us over and over again.

A form whose structure is built upon a foundation of violence, death, and suicide. A form whose members are recruited from the prisons around the world. A form whose members (some as young as five years old) are seen day after day, week in and week out, year after year, marching in the streets around the world, burning effigies of our presidents, burning the American flag, shooting weapons into the air. A form whose members convert from a peaceful religion, only to take up arms against the great United States of America, the country of their birth. A form whose rules are so twisted, that their traveling members refuse to show their faces at airport security checkpoints, in the name of Islam.

We will NEVER allow the attacks of September 11, or any others for that matter, to take away that which is so precious to us: Our rights under the greatest constitution in the world. I want to know where every Arab Muslim in this country stands and I think it is my right and the right of every true citizen of this country to demand it. A right paid for by the blood of thousands of my brothers and sisters who died protecting the very constitution that is protecting you and your family.

I am pleading with you to let me know. I want you here as my brother, my neighbor, my friend, as a fellow American.
But there can be no gray areas or ambivalence regarding your allegiance, and it is up to YOU, to show ME, where YOU stand. Until then.

'YOU WORRY ME!'

I totally agree with this sentiment. I hope you will forget all about the 'political correctness' mandate we've had rammed down our throats, and see if this doesn't ring true in your heart and mind. For Canada, with all the
multiculturism we've been told is so important....why should we not, as Canadians, expect that the millions of new people immigrating to our country will show their love for our country, their allegiance to our country, their
willingness to obey the laws of our country, and acceptance that we are a Christian country? Just because they are able to enjoy exercising their own religion, they should not expect us to be ashamed of ours. They knew Canada was a Christian country when they came here. Why are we erasing Christianity because immigrants who are unwilling to adopt our way of life expect us to? There is just too much insanity in the world, and we have to start taking a stand. The Muslim religious beliefs the are in direct conflict with Canadian laws and traditions , I am sorry but they have to go. The Canadian government and other of the free world must take a stand much like the Australian government has done and rid ourselves of these people in our country. If you want to live here we welcome you with open arms only you must obey our laws as they are written, our editions not yours. If you do not like our laws and our way of life then leave. no one is forcing you to stay here. You had the freedom to come here and you have the freedom to leave. I am afraid that if you keep up the nonsense of try to change our country to your beliefs you will not be safe here. Either the Muslims conform or leave. There should be no choice.

I hope you will forward, so others will feel they are not alone if they are starting to feel the same.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The above said, it must be known and appreciated, that some Muslims, Imams [spiritual leaders] in Canada and the US, and some other Muslims, including a Muslim University of Calgary professor, have had the courage to speak out against terrorism and anti-Canada or anti-US hatred and support of terrorist violence as being evil and anti-Islam. If you look and see and read the opinions out there, you will find this. It can be done, it can be said. It must be said.

Ordinary Muslims in Europe and Terrorist Profiling

2010-01-25T17:39:00.003-06:00

This is a double-whammy. The opinions set forth below came from some friends who are as concerned as I am about Muslim immigration in Europe and North America AND Terrorism AND the politically correct fools who are willing to die, rather than take appropriate action to stop terrorism.

Let it be said that there are many Muslims who immigrated to Canada and the US to get away from the very things the following opinions and comments talk about, and some of them are even speaking out against the terrorists and their supporters. Better now than never, even if a bit late in the game.

The first part of the comments set forth below are particularly aimed at the European situation, which is critical for many countries. The second part is aimed particularly at Canada and the US where we have not yet reached a critical stage. Something can still be done to reverse and stop the situation here from reaching that critical stage. This will only happen if many people, including our leaders, remove their heads from those nether regions they have stuck them into.

Here are the comments:

ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ

The following is a copy of an article written by Spanish writer Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez and published in a Spanish newspaper on 1-15-08. It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate the message to the rest of Europe - and possibly to the rest of the world.

=====================================================

REMEMBER AS YOU READ -- IT WAS IN A SPANISH PAPER
Date : Tue, 15 January 2008 14:30:20 -0500

ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ
By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez

I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz. We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.

And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.

They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime.

Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.

And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.

We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.

What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.

***********************************

A lot of North Americans have become so insulated from reality that they imagine North America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves.

Absolutely No Profiling! Pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following multiple-choice test.

These events are actual events from history. They really happened! Do you remember?

HERE'S THE TEST

1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by:
a. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c. Harry Potter
d. A Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and
massacred by :
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon
by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old,
American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davey Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens , and a US Navy diver
trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male! extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

14. In 2008 Young men In Ontario were planning to blow up the TSX and other buildings to cause economic destruction to Canada and to murder our leaders.
a. Jack Layton b. The Air Farce Gang. c. Poo Bear d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 20

No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we North Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of profiling. Fortunately in Canada the extremists were caught before they could do any damage. Unfortunately the courts have let two of them go free to do it again. What were they thinking?

Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria Aldreds and other dunder-headed attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, feel ashamed of themselves -- if they have any such sense.

As the writer of the award winning story 'Forrest Gump' so aptly put it, 'Stupid is as stupid does'.

A Curse On Them - Airline Security and Government Incompetence

2010-01-15T22:30:00.004-06:00

Here we go again. I don't come this way very often these days, mostly because its such a waste of time, so I only do it when something really frosts my balls.

This time its the US, British, Canadian and other so-called democratic governments and their travel security wogs and their dreadful and dreary inpompetence and stupidity that has my goat.

As a senior citizen and a traveller - what else have I got to do with my time? - I would like to travel by air occasionally. However, no more. Luckily, I am healthy enough to be able to drive almost everywhere I want to go. Europe is too pass[eh], except for Eastern Europe and Turkey. So, I probably won't be flying there anymore. Mexico is too dangerous, what with the crooked and incompetent police and the super-violent drug trade. So I restrict myself to the continental US and Canada. Guess what? - I can drive anywhere in the US and Canada. It is still pleasant to do, the people are great, the border is not too much hassle, and the gas prices, motels, food and timeshares are OK.

I got nagged into agreeing to fly to Palm Springs this January. Never again. I told my wife - You fly down if you like! - then wait for me to drive down. She rapidly changed her tune for the next trip.

News to the airlines - fuck you. I am not going to subject myself to the delays, the hassles and the humiliations any more. It isn't worth it.

Last time I had the temerity to say this to some twit at WestJet she was upset that I had such an "anti-social" attitude [I should be grateful that they were caring for my security]. What crap!

First of all, the thing that precipitated this latest security atrocity was the idiot Islamist fanatic who was so incompetent and stupid that he burned himself on an airplane heading for Detroit at Christmas time. Of course, the world is full of idiot Islamist fanatics. The are mostly young and stupid, as well as suicidal [probably anxious to shuffle off this mortal coil in favour of cavorting with Muslim whores in "Paradise"]. Are we targetting these assholes as dangerous high-risk airline passengers? Nope. The European, the American and the Canadian authorities are so afraid of being labelled as not politically correct, they steadfastly ignore the obvious dangerous class of lunatics. Consequently, the ones that must be made to suffer are the law-abiding innocent travellers - senior citizens, babies, young children, and others, who must put up with increasingly stupid and still ineffective so-called "security" measures, just so the idiot bureaucrats can falsely claim they are doing "something" about the problem.

When was the last time a senior citizen of European ancestry, a baby, a child, even anyone else of European ancestry blew up an airplane? Would I be correct to say - never? So why are we targetted by the security dunderheads?

Secondly, in the case of the Detroit-bound asshole, he had already been identified to all of the relevant authorities by his father, well before he passed through one or more border security stations and got on the several airlines necessary to get from Europe to the plane about to land in Detroit. Does this also not reveal colossal bungling, incompetence, ineptitude, laziness, and other unknown forms of stupidity on the part of the paragons of security in several countries? So now, to compensate for the aforesaid incompetence, we, the aforesaid innocent travelling public, must suffer at the hands of the same idiots.

Thirdly, what is even worse, the many instances of Islamist attempts at violence, some immediately successful and others not so successful, have given our governments, police, judges and bureaucrats the excuses to strip away the hard-won civil liberties our civilization has fought for over many centuries, and impose aspects of a police state on us, such as spying on all citizens' communications, unconstitutional seizure of property and personal information, as well as arrest and detention without warrant or reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing based on real evidence, etc.

Please forgive me for the rant. But as you can guess, I am pissed off, not so much at the Islamofascists, but at our so-called "authorities" and "protectors". These people, like Stalin, Hitler, the Chinese Communists, the military dictatorship of Burma [Myanmar], and others like them, are as much enemies of the people and of democracy as the fanatical Islamists, but they are wolves in sheeps' clothing. Most of us are too lazy, ignorant or stupid to see it. A curse on such people and their friends and associates. May they burn in Hell forever.

Straight Talk About Canadian Aboriginals

2009-10-06T23:42:00.002-06:00

Chief Clarence Louie Osoyoos BC

ROY MacGREGOR

FORT McMURRAY — From Thursday's Globe and Mail Last updated on Monday, Apr. 06, 2009 11:30PM EDT

The man with the PowerPoint presentation is miffed. He is speaking to a large aboriginal conference and some of the attendees, including a few who hold high office, have straggled in.

'I can't stand people who are late, he says into the microphone. Indian Time doesn't cut it. '

Some giggle, but no one is quite sure how far he is going to go. Just sit back and listen:

'My first rule for success is Show up on time.'

'My No. 2 rule for success is follow Rule No. 1.'

'If your life sucks, it's because you suck.'

'Quit your sniffling.'

'Join the real world. Go to school, or get a job..'

'Get off of welfare. Get off your butt.'

He pauses, seeming to gauge whether he dare, then does.
'People often say to me, How you doin'? Geez I'm working with Indians what do you think?'

Now they are openly laughing ... applauding. Clarence Louie is everything that was advertised and more.

'Our ancestors worked for a living, he says. So should you.'

He is, fortunately, aboriginal himself. If someone else stood up and said these things - the white columnist standing there with his mouth open, for example - you'd be seen as a racist. Instead, Chief Clarence Louie is seen, increasingly, as one of the most interesting and innovative native leaders in the country even though he avoids national politics.

He has come here to Fort McMurray because the aboriginal community needs, desperately, to start talking about economic development and what all this multibillion-dollar oil madness might mean,for good and for bad.

Clarence Louie is chief and CEO of the Osoyoos Band in British Columbia's South Okanagan . He is 44 years old, though he looks like he would have been an infant when he began his remarkable 20-year-run as chief. He took a band that had been declared bankrupt and taken over by Indian Affairs and he has turned in into an inspiration.

In 2000, the band set a goal of becoming self-sufficient in five years. They're there.

The Osoyoos, 432 strong, own, among other things, a vineyard, a winery, a golf course and a tourist resort, and they are partners in the Baldy Mountain ski development. They have more businesses per capita than any other first nation in Canada .

There are not only enough jobs for everyone, there are so many jobs being created that there are now members of 13 other tribal communities working for the Osoyoos. The little band contributes $40-million a year to the area economy.

Chief Louie is tough. He is as proud of the fact that his band fires its own people as well as hires them. He has his mottos posted throughout the Rez. He believes there is no such thing as consensus, that there will always be those who disagree. And, he says, he is milquetoast compared to his own mother when it comes to how today's lazy aboriginal youth, almost exclusively male, should be dealt with.

Rent a plane, she told him, and fly them all to Iraq . Dump 'em off and all the ones who make it back are keepers. Right on, Mom.
The message he has brought here to the Chipewyan, Dene and Cree who live around the oil sands is equally direct: 'Get involved, create jobs and meaningful jobs, not just window dressing for the oil companies.'

'The biggest employer,' he says, 'shouldn't be the band office.'

He also says the time has come to get over it. 'No more whining about 100-year-old failed experiments.' 'No foolishly looking to the Queen to protect rights.'

Louie says aboriginals here and along the Mackenzie Valley should not look at any sharing in development as rocking-chair money but as investment opportunity to create sustainable businesses. He wants them to move beyond entry-level jobs to real jobs they earn all the way to the boardrooms. He wants to see business manners develop: showing up on time, working extra hours. The business lunch, he says, should be drive through, and then right back at it.

'You're going to lose your language and culture faster in poverty than you will in economic development', he says to those who say he is ignoring tradition.

Tough talk, at times shocking talk given the audience, but on this day in this community, they took it and, judging by the response, they loved it.

Eighty per cent like what I have to say, Louie says, twenty per cent don't. I always say to the 20 per cent, 'Get over it.' 'Chances are you're never going to see me again and I'm never going to see you again.' 'Get some counseling.'

The first step, he says, is all about leadership. He prides himself on being a stay-home chief who looks after the potholes in his own backyard and wastes no time running around fighting 100-year-old battles.

'The biggest challenge will be how you treat your own people.'

'Blaming government? That time is over.'

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Another person's Comment on the above:

I'm not sure I see the importance or relevance of this. I wish I could be given hundreds of millions of dollars (maybe they deserve it maybe they don't for aboriginal claims), thounsands if not millions of acres of land, no obligation to pay taxes, the right to self government and laws don't apply to the reservation and the ability to set up casinos wherever I want or database centers to run gambling and make millions. I too would set up my own golf courses, wineries, tourist reservations, you name it.Hard not to succeed when everything has been handed to you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

My comment:

You may recall a news story in Saskatchewan dating back more than 5 years, relating events which occurred in the small town of Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, involving a chief of a local Indian Band, and his [and, presumably his supporters and council] efforts to develop industry and create jobs for his people, and the strong, but entirely negative response of the organized Indian chiefs and politicians of the rest of the province.

Similarly, the Meadow Lake Indian Band in question, had received plenty of guilt payments from the federal and provincial governments and their Liberal and NDP office-holders. But, instead of sqaundering it, or putting the money into gambling dens, this chief and council invested it in a log-stripping and processing factory or plant, providing employment, as well as logs ready for use in home construction. Meadow Lake is in the north-western forested area of Saskatchewan with plenty of trees available for the purpose.

Some, or even most of the processed logs were used to construct homes for local Indians, and the remainder were offered for sale on the open market, bringing in income to make the operation more viable, etc.

This exercise provided a valuable learning opportunity, not only in the gaining of management and work skills, but in self-reliance.

Instead of hailing the achievements, the usual suspects mentioned above, vociferously and viciously attacked the local chief and his council for relieving "whitey" of his obligation to provide housing and welfare to Indians.

This group of enemies of their people must be among the 20% that Chief Louie mentions as opposing his philosophy as outlined in the accompanying article.

I agree with another person's comments I appended just below a copy of a Globe & Mail newspaper report of a talk by Chief Louie last April, at least insofar as they describe the reasons for my disgust with the rewards and handouts given to the Chiefs by our governments, however, given that I cannot change or influence the attitudes of many Canadians and, particularly their elected office-holders, it is still heartening to see that there are some outspoken Indians who recognize the Indian Industry B.S. that is keeping Indians poor, uneducated and stupid.

I heartily recommend a recent book by two Canadian academics, Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard, who published in 2008 a book entitled "Disrobing The Aboriginal Industry - The Deception Behind Indigenous Cultural Preservation". Reference to where to buy the book and some review info is listed below.

These two have encountered considerable criticism and vituperative comments from those skewered by their research and words. They have even - who would have guessed it? - been accused of racism by Indian politicians and supporters of the Indian Industry. One of the most vicious of those is, Gerald Taiaiake Alfred, a self-described "author, educator and activist who is committed to Indigenous peoples' dignity, freedom and nationhood".

Taiaiake was born in Montreal in 1964 and was raised on the Kahnawake Mohawk reserve.

One of his comments is: "Evidently, Widdowson and Howard get up in the morning and eat a dog’s breakfast of outmoded communist ideology and rotten anthropological theories washed down with strong racial prejudices inherited from their own unexamined colonial upbringings, all of which would turn anyone else’s stomach."

Another is: "I found a collection of distortions, omissions, and exaggerations, that provides a reading experience like that of slogging through an undergraduate essay by, say, a kid from Alberta ruminating on Québecois nationalism, or an Alabama schoolgirl writing on the root causes of black-on-black violence. What a disappointment.

Another is: "it is understandable how the authors can, or must, advocate for the destruction of the natural environment by industrial development, and why they must hate and seek to destroy the people most closely connected to and committed to the preservation of nature in the face of capitalist exploitation of the land: Indigenous people.

This reaction is typical of those who oppose the message conveyed by the "Disrobing" book. In the last quote from Alfred one can see the nonsensical mythological romantic notion held by so many liberals and supporters of the Indian Industry that Indians are selfless and natural guardians of nature. This is a concept that does not accord with the facts of history, but helps liberals to view Indians as mystical and holy, and, therefore, beyond criticism and untouchable.

Given the strong liberal guilt that infuses so many non-Indian Canadians, as well as the cowardice and opportunism that defines politics in Canada today, statements like those of Chief Louie are very welcome and indeed almost revolutionary, despite the unfortunate basis on which his Band, and a few others, have developed their enterprises.

-------------------------------------------------------------

The "Disrobing" book may be found on the website of Amazon.ca [cheapest price - $18.87 plus shipping] or on some other distributors' websites. The relevant references are:

Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry

The Deception Behind Indigenous Cultural Preservation

Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard

How aboriginal deprivation is maintained by a self-serving "industry" of lawyers and consultants.

Paper (0773534210) 9780773534216
Release date: 2008-10-24
CA $32.95 | US $29.95
Order by mail / fax : Order form

Cloth (0773534202) 9780773534209
Release date: 2008-10-24
CA $95.00 | US $95.00
Order by mail / fax : Order form

6 x 9
336pp
4 figures

Subjects:
Native Studies Political Science: Canadian Public Policy: Canadian

-----------------------------------------------

Another Reviewer's Comments:

Despite the billions of dollars devoted to aboriginal causes, Native people in Canada continue to suffer all the symptoms of a marginalized existence - high rates of substance abuse, violence, poverty. Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry argues that the policies proposed to address these problems - land claims and self government - are in fact contributing to their entrenchment.

By examining the root causes of aboriginal problems, Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard expose the industry that has grown up around land claim settlements, showing that aboriginal policy development over the past thirty years has been manipulated by non-aboriginal lawyers and consultants. They analyse all the major aboriginal policies, examine issues that have received little critical attention - child care, health care, education, traditional knowledge - and propose the comprehensive government provision of health, education, and housing rather than deficient delivery through Native self-government.

Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry presents a convincing argument that the "Aboriginal Industry" has failed to address the fundamental economic and cultural basis of native problems, leading instead to policies that offer a financial benefit to the leadership while entrenching the misery of most aboriginal people.

Other Review quotes:

"Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry does an excellent job of pointing out logical inconsistencies in the Aboriginal political movement - a matter of great practical as well as academic importance." Tom Flanagan, author of First Nations? Second Thoughts

"Insightful, carefully argued and meticulously documented." John Richards, Simon Fraser University

----------------------------------------------------

Frances Widdowson is a faculty member, Department of Policy Studies, Mount Royal College.

Albert Howard has worked as a consultant for government and Native groups, and is currently an instructor and Director of Programs, Kennedy College of Technology, Toronto.

----------------------------------------------------

Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry
Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments vi

A STORY
Introduction: Discovering the Emperor’s Nudity 3

PART ONE ORIGINS
1 The Aboriginal Industry: Weavers of Illusory Silk 19
2 Denying the Developmental Gap: Preserving Culture in a Jar 49

PART TWO TABOOS, FABRICATIONS AND SOPHISTRY
3 Land Claims: Dreaming Aboriginal Economic Development 81
4 Self-Government: An Inherent Right to Tribal Dictatorships 106
5 Justice: Rewarding Friends and Punishing Enemies 129
6 Child Welfare: Strengthening the Abusive Circle 160
7 Health Care: A Superstitious Alternative 173
8 Education: Honouring the Ignorance of Our Ancestors 191
9 Environmental Management: The Spiritual Sell-Out of “Mother Earth” 215

PART THREE SPHERES OF DECEPTION
10 Traditional Knowledge: Listening to the Silence 231

Conclusion: What Is to Be Done? 249

Notes 265
Index 319

--------------------------------------------------------------

New Element Discovered

2009-09-07T10:55:00.002-06:00

Sometimes the goofy emails one gets are worth repeating. The following one is one of those.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of the heaviest chemical yet known to science. This new element has been tentatively named "Governmentium".

Governmentium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected as it impedes every reaction with which it come into contact.

A tiny amount of Governmentium causes one reaction to take over four days to complete when it would normally take less than a second.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of four years; it does not decay, but, instead, it undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to speculate that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypocritical quantity is referred to as "Critical Morass". You will know it when you see it.

When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element which radiates just as much energy since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think the above phenomenon has ever been so well explained.

Phone Companies Still Putting the Screws

2009-09-06T21:50:00.002-06:00

In the summer of 2009, Blogger Michael Geist once again rounded on the phone, especially the cellular, companies for doing their best to continue screwing Canadian phone customers, this time with the help of the federal government. A project was under way in a government department to prepare a web or computer program to assist Canadians in sorting through the confusing morass of cellular service offerings in their search for the best deal, but due to industry lobbying the government abandoned the project with a few weak excuses. Thanks, Michael, for your efforts.

This reminded me of a recent effort I made to discover the source of a change in policy by
Sasktel Mobility [cellular service provider] ending automatic expiration of cellular service cards sold by the utility, and loss of unused paid-for cellular time.

I had canceled my cellular service some years ago [after my initial contract expired] because I only needed the phone for emergency use during holiday travel, which occurred only several times a year. Why pay every month for no service? Use of the Saskatchewan-based cell phone in the US was prohibitively expensive [in my view], which was another nail in the lack-of-value coffin. I would have purchased cellular time cards for use in Canada, but the automatic loss of both phone number and unused paid-for time, plus the need to ante-up another $25.00 activation fee every time I needed to revive the service, angered me so much that I dropped the idea entirely of using a cell phone in Canada. I hate getting screwed at every turn.

The new policy only requires the making of one phone call every 150 days after initial activation, and the purchase of a new card or block of time within 150 days after having used up the last card or block of time to prevent inactivation and the need to re-activate. That seemed reasonable to me.

Did this happen because the phone carriers have had a change of heart and decided to be fair to their customers? NNNOOO!!! The Saskatchewan legislature amended the Consumer Protection Act in late 2008, added some new provisions to the statute [sections 77.10 to 77.16] prohibiting the sellers of "Prepaid Purchase Cards" [of which cellular time and use cards are an example] from including an expiry date in or relating to their cards and rendering any expiry date invalid and ineffective. the law also requires the seller of such a card to inform any card customer with information detailing the effect of this law on the card, and, further prohibiting the seller from charging an inactivity or dormancy fee in relation to the card or charging any other fee in relation to the card. Regulations attached to the statute can vary these terms, but not the basic thrust and effect of them.

I also discovered that some cellular service stores and kiosks for Rogers and other cellular service providers claim ignorance of this change in the law and are still selling cellular cards with expiration dates. The ripoff continues.

I now own a $20 card, have an activated cellular phone number, and can use this service anywhere in Canada.

That does not end the story. When I travel to the US I use a recent-model LG cell phone purchased for $12 from Walmart in the US and a $20 card that needs no activation fee that provides me with a US phone number and calls at $0.10 per minute. One brand of these phones calls itself TracPhone, another is Net10. Use of these phones involves no roaming, long distance or other charges. Calls back to Canada cost $0.05 per minute more than in-US calls. There may not be similar consumer protection relating to cellular card sales in some or many US states. This does not concern me much, because having a cheap phone/card combination in the US makes it worthwhile, despite the expiry of the card after 30 days for the 150 minute card [$20]. I never stay in the US for more than 30 days at a time, usually less.

Canadian Muslim Decries Canadian Tolerance of Harmful Behaviours of Some Muslims and Other Immigrants

2009-07-03T23:27:00.003-06:00

Mahfooz Kanwar, PHD, a sociologist and an Instructor Emeritus at
Mount Royal College in Calgary, provided The Calgary Herald on March 30, 2009, with an article slamming Canadian tolerance of Islamist political posturing and statements, and called for Canadians abandoning political correctness, demanding assimilation of Muslim and other immigrants into the mainstream, and requiring such immigrants to become patriotic and loyal to Canada.

For example, he criticized calls for the making of Punjabi one of Canada's official languages, and demands by some Muslims that Canada's national anthem not be played in schools.

He said he found it amazing that Canadians should be afraid of offending minorities by asserting Canadian culture and principles. He referred to Canadians as being timid, afraid to assert their own freedom of expression and values.

He wrote that Canadian should require immigrants to adjust to Canada, rather than immigrants demanding that Canada accept immigrant cultural norms and notions. He stated that it was up to immigrants to adjust to the majority, not the reverse. He stated that, while citing examples of Muslim wrong-doing, Canadians do not kill their daughters or other females in their families who refuse to wear the hijab, burka or niqab, underlining that these forms of dress are not even mandated by the Koran. This sort of un-Canadian behaviour and attitude must be given up by immigrants to Canada.

Mr. Kanwar cited numerous examples of behaviour harmful to women practised in other countries, not just Muslim ones, that are unlawful and should not be tolerated in Canada and that behaviour of a similar nature in Canada should be exposed and prosecuted. He also cited examples of some of this behaviour in Canada.

Mr. Kanwar opposes the call by some Muslims for establishment of Sharia law in Canada, as well as the importation of violence against homeland enemies into Canada, where it does not belong.

He also says that while he was once a supporter of multiculturalism, he is no longer because it has been perverted into a wrongful tolerance of improper, unpatriotic and even unlawful behaviour by some immigrants.

Of course, due to our country's goofy laws relating to copyright, I have not been able to quote his article at length and in full context. Perhaps readers can find it online at the Calgary Herald should they wish to read the entire piece.

Nevertheless, I am pleased to see an immigrant from one of the countries where some of the worst offenders against the concept of becoming Canadian and in favour of importing harmful ideas and practices into Canada come from, frame his criticisms in the same way I would. After all, I too, as is the case with most Canadians, come from immigrant roots, yet I have no identification, other than one of curiosity and a few food-related customs, with the homeland of my grand-parents.

Canadian Internet Snoop Law Proposal Unconstitutional

2009-06-28T11:42:00.001-06:00

Canada, and its governing pols, are about to join the ranks of fascistic, totalitarian and appalling stupid governments in formerly democratic countries which have all opted for unwarranted spying on their citizens communications over the internet, especially through spying on emails.

What is more appalling is the strong likelihood that Canada's courts will approve the measures, employing sophistic [misleading and false] arguments and justifications for the gutting of our constitutional protections against governmental misbehaviour directed against privacy and communication rights. Our courts have, in the past, been only too willing to ignore our constitutional rights in favour of police-state powers on the pretext of countering terrorism, of pushing a feminist agenda, or on the pretext of "protecting" children. Certainly in regard to terrorism, it would not be too much to ask that spying on private communications should require the usual safeguards based on the obtaining or warrants from a court charged with the responsibility to ensure that some reasonable grounds exist for such spying.

The problem with giving the police and spy agencies "carte blanche" or the power to act arbitrarily and without reasonable grounds, is that, in the past, the police, as have other agencies of the state, have often not only failed to act with responsibility towards the protection of privacy rights, but, instead, have acted with utter disregard for same. As has been argued by civil rights guardians, such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, editorial writers, academics, and others, there are very adequate laws in effect in Canada which, if properly applied, give police and the state the means to counter terrorism and criminality without generalized spying on everyone. In fact, recent experience in dealing with examples of terrorist plotting has demonstrated the truth of such arguments.

One possible reason why this proposal will likely be enacted is the horde of lazy, ignorant and stupid politicians that infest our Parliament. It is well known, at least amongst those who make it their business to know, that complicated legislation containing potentially far-reaching and harmful provisions, is frequently passed by the politicians without being read in some cases, and in most cases, without being understood, and, in some cases with flagrant disregard for the harm that such legislation can lead to.

Since your writer is just an ordinary citizen, such comments as made in the preceding paragraph can be stated with little fear of reprisal. Consequently, I have not minced words. Please add your concerns to mine and attempt to stop the fools. Protests seem to have succeeded in Australia, where a similar proposal was defeated in the past several years.

Kafka-esque Trial Defies Justice and Rule of Law

2009-05-28T11:49:00.001-06:00

Nothing makes my blood boil more than my supposed "legal" brethren justifying secret court procedures similar to the infamous old English Star Chamber [secret trials by the King's minions], except their characterizing such behaviour as trivial.

Instead of my wasting time and breath describing the details of this fiasco, just look at George Jonas' column on it. He calls it correctly and does a good job. See his article at: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=aab8a881-0a1b-45c7-91ae-7ee57cce6fca&p=2

This also reminds me of a comment made by a senior law officer of the Crown in Manitoba in October 1970 justifying the imposition of the War Measures Act and martial law all across Canada by arguing that it was OK because it wasn't any worse than what happened normally in the Soviet Union. Trudeau's actions in 1970 were done cynically and with knowledge that such drastic action was unnecessary to stop and capture the FLQ terrorists in Quebec. The RCMP knew where they were and could have arrested them anytime, but were told not to by Ottawa and Quebec City, primarily to enable mass arrests of supporters of a left-leaning civic coalition in Montreal that were about to unseat the corrupt regime of the Montreal mayor who had provincial and federal Liberal support. Where did I get this information from? From a retired RCMP senior officer who was intimately familiar with the facts.

The rule of law and justice is always set aside whenever the powers that be think its necessary.

Will You Support the P.M.?

2009-05-19T00:31:00.000-06:00

Someone from the Canadian federal Tories called me the other day to find
out whether or not I supported P.M. Harper and the Tories.

I told them I leaned towards conservatism, but said that her party was
not living up to that position and that, among other things, because of
the Tory lies and about-face concerning taxation of Income Trusts I
could not support them, as her party had cost me many dollars of my
retirement investments despite the fact that leaving Income Trusts
untouched would not have deprived the government of tax revenues they so
desperately wanted.

As I talked to the phone minion I got angrier and angrier, ultimately
saying that politicians were scumbags, liars and scoundrels and that I
could not support any of them. The minion could not hang up the phone
fast enough to get away from my rising level of vitriol.

Why has the gulf between politicians, political parties, and many
Canadians who are not party toadies, or left-wing ideologues, become so
wide?

I confess that I come from a politically active and involved family, but
have swung around to despising politicians of all parties and stripes.
Perhaps aging has something to do with it - there is some benefit to
having gained lots of experience - but that is not the real answer.
Many of my past colleagues and friends on the left of the political
spectrum have retained their collectivist and business-hating attitudes,
and are firm supporters of NDP or left-Liberal politics, despite their
advancing ages. So, wisdom does not necessarily come with age.

Nevertheless, union bureaucrats, union members, academics, students,
career politicians and others who have never had to build anything, or
to take entrepreneurial initiative or to risk both their assets and
their personal efforts in economic endeavours, are always quick with
advice to, directions for, criticisms of or outright condemnation of
those who do. Union bureaucrats, once lodged in their positions,
organize everything in order to perpetuate the security of their
positions; union members seek security from being fired for laziness and
incompetence and higher and higher pay for less and less work; academics
demand and get high pay and tenure, so as to protect their cushy places
in the ivory tower; career politicians vote themselves higher and higher
pay, outrageous early retirement pensions, and other perks too numerous
to detail; and students, with nothing to risk and nothing to give,
demand more and more.

Many parents in our society have become managers and directors of their
childrens' lives, including their play, to such a degree that children
have less and less experience of making decisions on their own. This is
combined with demands on the education system for feel good curricula;
teaching self-esteem without teaching self-reliance or responsibility;
the validation of "everyone's" opinions without teaching real values,
resulting in moral relativism and no values; with every child being a
success and none being a failure; and resulting in fewer and fewer being
truly educated.

Is it any wonder that many young adults enter the work-force
ill-equipped for work, for relations with fellow workers and their
employers or bosses, and demand wages, benefits, recognition and
positions they have not earned nor are capable of earning?

Who is responsible for this state of affairs? Certainly parents must
bear much of the blame. But, they have also been misled and misinformed
by the hordes of government bureaucrats, academics, self-proclaimed
experts and "activists" and politicians who have laid the ground-work
for our failing educational system and our grossly over-regulated
society. In this their ever-vigilant co-conspirators have been the
so-called "news" media, the journalists and editorialists, who carry the
message through sensationalism, misinformation and half-truths.

It is often these same people who clamour for a collective solution,
such as more and bigger government, more regulation, more intervention,
permitting less and less individual responsibility for our own lives.

The world over, every experiment with collectivist government has led to
economic failure, even stagnation and disaster. Government intervention
in our daily lives has often led to a reduction of freedom and our
ability to manage our own lives, despite the fact that some government
programs, such as health care, and many government activities, such as
the building and maintenance of infrastructure, are of benefit to most
people, despite gross failings and much waste. Where governments and
their advocates go wrong is in adopting the idea that every last little
human activity must be regulated and that government agencies can take
the place of market capitalism as the engine of growth and economic
progress. The rigidities of bureaucratic thinking and the inevitably
corrupt nature of political power and decision-making can only stifle
economic progress. This is the experience all over the world.

But, are these failings the only ones? Unfortunately, big government
and regulation, often tramples individuals into the dust. In the old
Soviet Union, voicing criticisms of government often led to psychiatric
imprisonment and involuntary chemical and electrical shock "therapy" for
critics, who "must have been insane" to challenge "government by the
masses". Today, in Germany, as in some other so-called democracies,
"slandering" the state is a criminal offense. In Canada, speaking out
concerning the dangers presented by some extreme forms of fundamentalist
religious behaviour is prosecuted by Human Rights Commissions as
"hate"-mongering and racism. Some Canadian cities have created a bylaw
offense of bullying: - "objectionable or inappropriate comment, conduct
or display by anyone which is "likely to intimidate, humiliate, ridicule
or isolate a person or is likely to cause that person physical or
emotional distress" - that is so comprehensive that it proscribes any
statements that might be critical of anyone.

These examples merely scratch the surface.

I am sure you know that Muslim fundamentalist extremists have murdered
people for making publicly critical statements about some Muslim
attitudes, statements and behaviour. No Canadian government or agency
has taken such extreme action, but in the context of a modern state
which trumpets its democratic traditions and freedom of speech protected
by a Charter of Rights, such government actions as outlined above are in
the same ball park.

Who is it that supports such undemocratic agencies, such failed
policies, such interventions, such excesses, such fanciful notions? It
is those same government and union bureaucrats, union members,
academics, students, career politicians and others of similar nature.

And to tie it all together: the Ottawa Tory regime has been rushing
pell-mell to curry favour with a misinformed public and a venal media
horde by adopting some of these same failed policies.

The state of Politics Today

2009-05-19T00:02:00.000-06:00

Someone from the Canadian federal Tories called me the other day to find
out whether or not I supported P.M. Harper and the Tories.

I told them I leaned towards conservatism, but said that her party was
not living up to that position and that, among other things, because of
the Tory lies and about-face concerning taxation of Income Trusts I
could not support them, as her party had cost me many dollars of my
retirement investments despite the fact that leaving Income Trusts
untouched would not have deprived the government of tax revenues they so
desperately wanted.

As I talked to the phone minion I got angrier and angrier, ultimately
saying that politicians were scumbags, liars and scoundrels and that I
could not support any of them. The minion could not hang up the phone
fast enough to get away from my rising level of vitriol.

Why has the gulf between politicians, political parties, and many
Canadians who are not party toadies, or left-wing ideologues, become so
wide?

I confess that I come from a politically active and involved family, but
have swung around to despising politicians of all parties and stripes.
Perhaps aging has something to do with it - there is some benefit to
having gained lots of experience - but that is not the real answer.
Many of my past colleagues and friends on the left of the political
spectrum have retained their collectivist and business-hating attitudes,
and are firm supporters of NDP or left-Liberal politics, despite their
advancing ages. So, wisdom does not necessarily come with age.

Nevertheless, union bureaucrats, union members, academics, students,
career politicians and others who have never had to build anything, or
to take entrepreneurial initiative or to risk both their assets and
their personal efforts in economic endeavours, are always quick with
advice to, directions for, criticisms of or outright condemnation of
those who do. Union bureaucrats, once lodged in their positions,
organize everything in order to perpetuate the security of their
positions; union members seek security from being fired for laziness and
incompetence and higher and higher pay for less and less work; academics
demand and get high pay and tenure, so as to protect their cushy places
in the ivory tower; career politicians vote themselves higher and higher
pay, outrageous early retirement pensions, and other perks too numerous
to detail; and students, with nothing to risk and nothing to give,
demand more and more.

Many parents in our society have become managers and directors of their
childrens' lives, including their play, to such a degree that children
have less and less experience of making decisions on their own. This is
combined with demands on the education system for feel good curricula;
teaching self-esteem without teaching self-reliance or responsibility;
the validation of "everyone's" opinions without teaching real values,
resulting in moral relativism and no values; with every child being a
success and none being a failure; and resulting in fewer and fewer being
truly educated.

Is it any wonder that many young adults enter the work-force
ill-equipped for work, for relations with fellow workers and their
employers or bosses, and demand wages, benefits, recognition and
positions they have not earned nor are capable of earning?

Who is responsible for this state of affairs? Certainly parents must
bear much of the blame. But, they have also been misled and misinformed
by the hordes of government bureaucrats, academics, self-proclaimed
experts and "activists" and politicians who have laid the ground-work
for our failing educational system and our grossly over-regulated
society. In this their ever-vigilant co-conspirators have been the
so-called "news" media, the journalists and editorialists, who carry the
message through sensationalism, misinformation and half-truths.

It is often these same people who clamour for a collective solution,
such as more and bigger government, more regulation, more intervention,
permitting less and less individual responsibility for our own lives.

The world over, every experiment with collectivist government has led to
economic failure, even stagnation and disaster. Government intervention
in our daily lives has often led to a reduction of freedom and our
ability to manage our own lives, despite the fact that some government
programs, such as health care, and many government activities, such as
the building and maintenance of infrastructure, are of benefit to most
people, despite gross failings and much waste. Where governments and
their advocates go wrong is in adopting the idea that every last little
human activity must be regulated and that government agencies can take
the place of market capitalism as the engine of growth and economic
progress. The rigidities of bureaucratic thinking and the inevitably
corrupt nature of political power and decision-making can only stifle
economic progress. This is the experience all over the world.

But, are these failings the only ones? Unfortunately, big government
and regulation, often tramples individuals into the dust. In the old
Soviet Union, voicing criticisms of government often led to psychiatric
imprisonment and involuntary chemical and electrical shock "therapy" for
critics, who "must have been insane" to challenge "government by the
masses". Today, in Germany, as in some other so-called democracies,
"slandering" the state is a criminal offense. In Canada, speaking out
concerning the dangers presented by some extreme forms of fundamentalist
religious behaviour is prosecuted by Human Rights Commissions as
"hate"-mongering and racism. Some Canadian cities have created a bylaw
offense of bullying: - "objectionable or inappropriate comment, conduct
or display by anyone which is "likely to intimidate, humiliate, ridicule
or isolate a person or is likely to cause that person physical or
emotional distress" - that is so comprehensive that it proscribes any
statements that might be critical of anyone.

These examples merely scratch the surface.

I am sure you know that Muslim fundamentalist extremists have murdered
people for making publicly critical statements about some Muslim
attitudes, statements and behaviour. No Canadian government or agency
has taken such extreme action, but in the context of a modern state
which trumpets its democratic traditions and freedom of speech protected
by a Charter of Rights, such government actions as outlined above are in
the same ball park.

Who is it that supports such undemocratic agencies, such failed
policies, such interventions, such excesses, such fanciful notions? It
is those same government and union bureaucrats, union members,
academics, students, career politicians and others of similar nature.

And to tie it all together: the Ottawa Tory regime has been rushing
pell-mell to curry favour with a misinformed public and a venal media
horde by adopting some of these same failed policies.

One of My Towel-Head Friends

2008-11-27T11:04:00.001-06:00

Governments Continue To Develop Fascist Policies

2008-11-09T10:50:00.007-06:00

Fascism Alive and Well in UK

The Telegraph newspaper [telegraph.co.uk] reports on November 6th, 2008, that:

"Internet black boxes to record every email and website visit Internet "black boxes" could be used to record every email and website visit made by computer users in Britain....".

The article, by Graham Tibbetts, went on to say:

"Under Government plans to monitor internet traffic, raw data would be collected and stored by the black boxes before being transferred to a giant central database.

The vision was outlined at a meeting between officials from the Home Office and Internet Service Providers earlier this week.

It is further evidence of the Government's desire to have the capability to vet every telephone call, email and internet visit made in the UK, which has already provoked an outcry."

As I have written here on numerous occasions in the past, disturbing proposals, actions and laws of the UK government, lead any
democracy-loving observer to conclude that the UK government is slowly, but surely, slipping into a form of totalitarianism, which I like to call fascism [even though political scientists may argue my use of such a term is technically inaccurate]. Many Britons, to be sure, have protested against such anti-democratic measures, but the government persists in pushing its nazi-like agenda.

Of course, under the guise of the "war on terror", the Canadian, US and other nominally democratic governments, not to be outdone, have enacted several similarly fascist or nazi-like measures, eroding civil liberties and traditional freedoms. The latest instance in the US of this agenda is the government's policy of allowing border control cops to seize and steal from citizens and foreigners alike, without reasonable or probable cause, computers and other devices which might contain emails or other information the government might wish to examine.

All of this is ostensibly done to fight terrorism and crime, but in so doing, these governments are doing just what the Islamist terrorists want, namely, to destroy democracy. Is it a conspiracy between the terrorists and our fascist-like governments or is it mostly an expression of any government's natural tendency towards fascism which can bloom where the citizenry are ignorant, complacent, and foolish? I suspect it is the latter.

Message to Microsoft re Genuine Advantage

2008-11-05T02:41:00.002-06:00

I am a reasonable guy, but......and this is a big butt.....MICROSOFT,
GET OFF MY BACK. Remember the Sophie Tucker joke about that.
If you are so ignorant as not to know the joke, too bad.

Quit bothering me about Genuine Advantage. Isn't it enough that I
purchased your god-damned operating system? I paid for it. I'm using
it. So fuck off and leave me alone. Could I put it any more plainly?

That abortion does me no good. Maybe you think it is good for you, but,
you know what, I don't give a fuck about you or your interest.

The above is the message I'd like to get to MICROSOFT. Unfortunately, I
can only do it this way, since I can't find a way to send them an email.
If this message is ever read by you assholes at MICROSOFT, take note!

Tax Grab - Government Arrogance & Power Hunger

2008-08-12T00:44:00.001-06:00

Government Arrogance and Power Hunger

I just paid some interest to Canada's national income tax office. It wasn't very much, because the amount I had to pay was small, but I was astounded by the rate of interest they demanded. Could you believe 8% per month? Without the compounding effect that amounts to 96% per annum. Because it is charged monthly, its effect is compounded, and amounts to well over 150% per annum.

It still is a criminal offence, pursuant to Section 347 of the Criminal Code of Canada, to charge usurious interest rates. That section defines any interest charged at over sixty percent per annum as being a "criminal rate". The penalties for doing this are serious, ranging from imprisonment for as much as 5 years and, in some cases, a fine of up to $25,000.00. Back in medieval times it was an offence punishable by death. Parliament only allows individuals or corporations to recover a simple rate of 5% on amounts claimed in judgements for money claims, and the courts have allowed up to bank rates of interest on damages claims. Politicians of every ilk have been seen and heard railing against the iniquitous rates charged by credit card companies on overdue charges [usually between 18% and 23%].

I am sure that the charge is really a penalty, but it is not characterized as such by government. They don't have the guts to call it what is really is. But why should slow or late payment attract such a penalty? Many business people who provide goods or services to government are forced to wait unconscionable lengths of time for payment after delivery or services rendered, with no compensation for the loss of use of the money they are entitled to. What is so holy about the government's entitlement that failure to pay on time should attract such a severe penalty? Keep in mind that the government often uses much more severe threats and actions to collect money it demands from us.

Who is responsible for this? It is probably mostly the result of bureaucratic arrogance and power hunger, but it has to be enacted into law by our "esteemed" politicians, so, ultimately they are to blame for it. Is this any worse than rule by warlord or autocratic despot? Is it any worse than the actions of organized crime lenders who also rely on force and violence to collect their huge charges for loans?

To put it all in perspective, only a few decades ago, many people thought a 9% per annum interest charge on late payments was outrageous. These days it is a great deal worse. I guess the public is docile and ignorant enough to allow their masters to get away with it without complaint or challenge.

B.C. Human Rights Commision - They Ought To Be Ashamed

2008-06-23T21:18:00.002-06:00

I sent these guys the following email [slightly edited in this version to correct typos, and to improve the original letter]. They have attained some notoriety over past months because they have instituted the prosecution of a Canadian magazine, Macleans, for running an article about a book written by Mark Steyn about the possible impact of Islamo-fascism on Europe and beyond, because the book might expose Muslims in Canada to negative attitudes due to the extreme aspects of their religion.

**** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***

"I am not surprised, but am saddened because of your ignorance concerning the threat of Islamo-fascism to the modern world and to Europe and North America in particular.

First of all, please know that I used to be the outside lawyer for a Canadian provincial Human Rights Commision in the 70's and early 80's, and, consequently understand what the advocy role of a Human Rights Commision, as opposed to that of a tribunal, should be. I am appalled that your statute allows HR Tribunals to accept un-supported hearsay statements and ignore truth as a defence against charges laid under that statute. Vive la fascisme, eh!

Nevertheless, I want to tell you that I have read the entire book written by Mark Steyn from which excerpts were taken by Macleans. I have also read many other articles and news reports from the US, Canada, the UK, Holland, and elsewhere, including the book entitled, "Infidel" by Ayan Hirsi Ali, a Muslim woman originally from Somalia, driven out of Holland by threats of murder by Islamo-fascists, who reports in grim detail the problems with the religion itself as exacerbated by the extreme versions of it promulgated by the Islamo-fascists as philosophically represented by the Wahabists, especially via the teachings spread by many of the schools of extremism and terror called "madrassas" located around the world.

You and your people may not have not read this material. You have an poor understanding of the Muslim world view and of the basic teachings of Mohammed, the prophet. You see the world through the rose-colored glasses of Western non-value [relativistic] oriented liberalism.

The major problem is that the basic tenets of the Muslim religion consists of a collection of very extreme views, centered in a medieval value system and worldview based on a warrior-oriented, expansionist and violent concept of advancement of the religion. On the positive side, it is certainly clear that many adherents of the religion do not ascribe to the violent and dangerous basic tenets of Islam, however, many of them do nothing to expose or combat them. By and large, the extremes of Christian fundamentalism resemble Muslim extremist notions, however, Christianity is not NOW still mired in a medieval, warrior-based expansionist mindset. Therein lies the very real difference between the two religions.

Have a look at the NYT article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/world/africa/23algeria.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin, as well as many of the other articles and books on the subject before going off half-cocked at you have done. You ought to know better, but clearly have not taken the time or made the effort to enlighten yourself. Perhaps your relativistic liberal attitudes prevent you from believing those things you might read that contradict your world view."

Massachusetts Victimizes Innocent Employee

2008-06-20T12:13:00.000-06:00

I cannot resist commenting on the callous and vicious treatment accorded to an innocent employee of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Department of Industrial Accidents. Not only did they fire him and charge him criminally based on invalid "evidence" of placing child porn on his departmental laptop, but, as is usually the case with governments, they continue to refuse to apologize and to put things right, despite the horrible impact such false charges have had upon his life, including his reputation.

As well, they did not do any investigative due diligence before taking such actions, and his ass was only saved [the criminal charges were dropped for lack of evidence] because he hired a forensic investigator to demonstrate that his employer gave him a laptop already infected with viruses and malware that caused the laptop to visit internet child porn sites. Apparently, the only place porn could be found on the computer was in the Internet Cache. The investigator was able to prove that this occurred as a result of malware causing the browser software to visit such sites.

No doubt, many people may refuse to believe such a thing can easily happen. Another computer expert who confirms the claims of the forensic investigator says:

"I have a demo on my web site of how to do "preloading" in javascript. Is javascript enabled in your browser? If so, my demo shows how I can create a web page that quietly downloads images from arbitrary URLs, without showing them to you. This may be used to load those images into your browser's cache. It has valid uses, such as to speed up subsequent downloading of other pages from my site which use those images. But I can just as easily fill your browser's cache with porn. Unless you know how to scan your browser's cache (or have the sense to purge it frequently), you'll never know what I've done to you. My code (actually my web server) also tells me your IP address, which I can use to send the authorities in to examine your browser's cache.

I'd be willing to testify in court how easy this is. And give the court a copy of my code (though they could easily download it from my web site ;-)."

Back to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Department of Industrial Accidents. They have once again shown how stupid and vicious politicians and bureaucrats often are when dealing with the public and their employees. There is no excuse for such behaviour. They could have done the due diligence necessary to fully investigate the basis for a possible case against Mr. Fiola, but they did not. Why?

My long experience with government bureaucrats, police, and politicians reveals that they often go off half-cocked, seemingly preferring to do as much damage as possible, and rarely make the effort to find out if they have evidence supporting their actions. But what is even worse, is that after they have been found out, and their incompetence, laziness and pettiness has been revealed, they refuse to acknowledge their faults and to make reasonable efforts to set things as right as possible, preferring instead to stonewall and ignore or cover-up.

Since over a year has gone by since the firing, the false allegations and the false criminal charges, and they have done nothing to rehabilitate Mr. Fiola's reputation and compensate him for his pain, the only conclusion I can reach is that I have characterized them correctly. If only I believed in Hell, I would wish them a long slow burn when they reach their deserved destination.

Urban Reserves - A Foolish Idea

2008-06-04T10:41:00.000-06:00

Urban Reserves - a Foolish Idea

Indians in and around Regina are celebrating the establishment of an urban reserve within the City of Regina. Proponents and collaborators from the non-Indian community are no doubt joining in the celebrations. Unfortunately, it is both counter-productive and foolish to expand a system that was created to contain and control Indians and which has so many harmful and negative aspects. However, such foolishness is to be expected from the social democratic and liberal mindset of so many Canadians and from the cowards and fools that they elect to political office.

The creation of Indian reserves was Canada's version of apartheid, like the so-called "homelands" in South Africa. Those same social democrats and liberals would bridle at being called supporters of apartheid, but of course, "apartheid" is what happened elsewhere, and Canadians couldn't possibly have such vile motives.

Today, reserves are still cesspools of violence and degradation, despite the billions of dollars poured into them. They are also the political bailiwicks of a coterie of bureaucrats [the chiefs and their cronies] who do not wish to lose their control and other privileges, mainly financial.

Reserves are also roadblocks in the way of integration and modernization, of education and the creation of self-reliance and self-respect.

To perpetuate this foolishness in the creation of urban reserves doesn't do the general Indian population any favors. One of the main reasons, mostly unstated, for the establishment of urban reserves is to allow Indians to establish urban businesses, and to receive income free from taxation. While such privileges may benefit a few, they will not achieve the objective of hauling Indians up by their bootstraps into the modern economic and social world. Doing away with reserves [with sensitivity and careful planning] would help accomplish such an objective.

Isn't it about time that Indians both lived in the real world and actually contributed to it, instead of constantly being a drain on it?

June 4th, 2008

Islam is the problem, not just the terrorists

2007-10-14T21:29:00.000-06:00

It has been quite some time since my drivel graced these pages. I have just finished reading a book published in 2007, entitled "Infidel", written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, that demands some comments, so here I go again. I hope this incomplete review encourages people to buy or borrow and read this worthwhile effort. Ali, as a Dutch member of Parliament, was working with Dutch film-maker Theo Van Gogh when he was assassinated in 2004 in Holland by a Muslim murderer because he dared to release a film he made in co-operation with Ali, which told certain uncomfortable truths about Islam.

You might be interested in some excerpts from her book published by "Free Press", a division of Simon and Schuster, in 2007, entitled "Infidel". Ali is a Somali Muslim woman who moved from Africa to Holland [to escape a forced marriage], and who moved to the United States when Holland turned hostile and dangerous.

She has witnessed first hand the atrocities of ordinary, normal, mainstream Islam, and has made it clear that it is not "just" the "fanatics" and "radicals" that are responsible for the atrocities foisted on people throughout the world by Muslims and Islam. It is the ordinary, normal, mainstream adherents of the religion that are ultimately responsible for those atrocities. Fish must swim in the water to live and survive; just as terrorists operate freely and without easy detection because they are protected and supported within Muslim communities by those "ordinary" and "normal" Muslims throughout the world.

Of course, there are exceptions to the norm. It is dangerous to assume that every Muslim and every Muslim group are terrorists or terrorist supporters in disguise. There are schismatic sects among Muslims, as well as individual Muslims, who are not supporters of terrorism or who hold democratic values.

But that is only part of the picture. To ignore the main truth, however, is not only to be willfully ignorant, but to collaborate with terrorism, intolerance and backwardness. That, unfortunately, is the only fair way to describe those academics, left-wingers, liberals, and others who make excuses for terrorists and indiscriminately attack Israel, march in support of terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, and even donate money to support their activities.

Ms. Ali makes it clear that those Muslims, like herself, who have walked away from, or no longer believe in or follow the common attitudes of Muslims to other religions, other sects, other human behaviours, are themselves in danger of being subjected to intimidation, violence and even death, especially if they are open and public about their attitudes and beliefs.

Her book is a personal history, beginning with her experiences as a child of a Muslim family in a Muslim culture, and continuing through her development into an adult, her education in Holland and her accomplishments as a believer in freedom and democracy in Holland and the U.S. She has been a victim of Islamic violence, beginning with the painful female circumcision and the sewing up of her vagina visited on her as a child, and continuing with the constant threat of death under which she still lives. Her book outlines the process of discovery and enlightenment she underwent, beginning with a deep desire to become a "good" Muslim and adopt an unquestioning loyalty to Islamic "values", and ending with her realization that so many of those values are anti-human and evil in their very essences.

Now, she says of Islam, for example, "It [death] catches the imagination of men in positions of authority who order their subordinates to hunt, torture and kill people they imagine to be enemies. Death lures many others to take their own lives in order to escape a dismal reality. For many women, because of the perception of lost honour, death comes at the hands of a father, brother, or husband." [Page 346-347]

She lived in Saudi Arabia for a while and describes it as the place which is the source and quintessence of Islam and the origin of much of the fundamentalist vision that has spread so far today. There, she realized, every breath or step she took in practicing Islam was infused with concepts of purity or sinning, and with fear.

She says: "Wishful thinking about the peaceful tolerance of Islam cannot interpret away this reality: hands are cut off, women still stoned and enslaved, just as the Prophet Muhammad decided centuries ago. The kind of thinking I saw in Saudi Arabia, and among the Muslim Brotherhood in Kenya and Somalia, is incompatible with human rights and liberal values. It preserves a feudal mind-set based on tribal concepts of honor and shame. It rests on self-deception, hypocrisy, and double standards. It relies on the technological advances of the West while pretending to ignore their origin in Western thinking. This mind-set makes the transition to modernity very painful for all who practice Islam. It is always difficult to make the transition to a modern world. It was difficult for my grandmother, and for all my relatives from the miye[acute accent on the e]. It was difficult for me too. I moved from the world of faith to the world of reason -- from the world of excision and forced marriage to the world of sexual emancipation. Having made that journey, I know that one of those worlds is simply better than the other. Not because of its flashy gadgets, but fundamentally, because of its values. The message of this book, if it must have a message, is that we in the West would be wrong to prolong the pain of that transition unnecessarily, by elevating cultures full of bigotry and hatred toward women to the stature of respectable alternative ways of life. Life is better in Europe than it is in the Muslim world because human relations are better, and one reason human relations are better is that in the West, life on earth is valued in the here and now, and individuals enjoy rights and freedoms that are protected by the state. To accept subordination and abuse because Allah willed it -- that, for me, would be self-hatred."

In response to dismissals of her views as if she was treating rare behavior as the norm, she goes on to say: "The fact is that hundreds of millions of women around the world live in forced marriages, and six thousand small girls are excised every day. [Editor's note: Ali describes these things as going on regularly in Europe today among Muslims] My excision in no way damaged my mental capacities; and I would like to be judged on the validity of my arguments, not as a victim. When people say that the values of Islam are compassion, tolerance, and freedom, I look at reality, at real cultures and governments, and I see that it simply isn't so. People in the West swallow this sort of thing because they have learned not to examine the religions or cultures of minorities too critically, for fear of being called racist. It fascinates them that I am not afraid to do so."[pages 347 - 349]

Elsewhere in her book she described the attitude of Muslims [not just the terrorist radicals or fanatics] to Jews. She describes their beliefs [as taught to her by an Arab Muslim teacher in school in Kenya] that Jews had horns on their heads, and huge noses that resembled beaks, that djinns (demons) and devils flew out of their heads to mislead Muslims and spread evil, that everything that went wrong was the fault of the Jews, that Saddam Hussein was really a Jew (because he attacked Iran), that the Americans were controlled by "the Jews", and that Jews controlled the world and Islam was under attack by "the Jews". If this is a mainstream attitude within the Muslim community, taught to children in school, it is easy to understand the implacability of Muslims in refusing to make peace with Israel. It is interesting that this tallies with the depiction of Azerbaijani Muslims' views about Jews in Sacha B. Cohen's movie, Borat. I thought he was exaggerating. I guess not. [See page 85]

Ali's book contains a wealth of her observations and recollections about Muslim culture; their beliefs, attitudes and behaviour towards women and others, as well as the sources of these things. It is both enlightening and horrifying.

Her book also describes in detail the danger to European countries of the great influx of Muslim immigrants and refugees, as well as the wilfully ignorant and stupid responses [or lack of responses] to that influx and its dangers to democracy and freedom.

These are not the rants of some right-wing Western racist or fanatic.

Regina City Council Passes Foolish "Bullying" Bylaw

2006-04-27T19:36:00.000-06:00

Anti-Bullying Bylaw Is Height of Foolishness By Regina Civic Politicians

The story appeared on page B3 of the April 25th, 2006, edition of the Leader-Post. I sent the following to the Leader-Post letters to the editor by e-mail on April 25th, but as of April 27th I have not seen any evidence that they thought it was interesting enough to publish. Judge for yourself.

The letter:

This poorly conceived move by Council is foolish in the extreme. It would likely make my first sentence a crime. I suspect that one of the reasons Council passed it is to prevent just and deserved criticism [peppered with a few choice adjectives to underline the critic's disgust] of the often silly attitudes and decisions held and acted on by politicians. So it is self-serving. But it is worse than that.

It opens a Pandora's Box of possible complaints and charges by thin-skinned and overly-sensitive people which must then be acted on by police and prosecutors. The definition of bullying is much too wide, including what is termed "objectionable or inappropriate comment, conduct or display by anyone which is "likely to intimidate, humiliate, ridicule or isolate a person or is likely to cause that person physical or emotional distress". Any person who is offended by comment or conduct, whether it is fair or reasonable comment or not, could press a complaint and the police would have to act on it. Similar laws passed in recent years in Britain [see NOTE below] have been used by public authorities and individual citizens alike to pillory and victimize people on the vaguest and flimsiest of bases.

The terms "objectionable or inappropriate" are so vague and subjective that it will be impossible for any court to interpret the words and apply them fairly to a vast range of possible comment. This alone should be enough reason for the courts to strike down the bylaw.

When I described Council's move as foolish, that comment, although emminently fair and reasonable, would be seen by councillors as intended to ridicule them, as it is indeed intended. And it may cause some of them to feel emotional distress, although probably very slight distress. Under this bylaw, even teasing could be viewed as bullying, given the subjective nature of the definition.

The bylaw, as it stands, is probably contrary to the Charter of Rights, inasmuch as it severely limits free speech in an unreasonable and unnecessary way.

If Council wants to restrain bullying it must do a better job and restrict the bylaw to specific instances which are clearly definable.

An afterthought: The bylaw is also probably an attempt at legislating criminal law, which is purely the sole jurisdiction of the Canadian federal government, and is likely invalid on that ground.

NOTE: On Monday, April 18, 2005, I published a blog article called "British Adoption Of Anti-Democracy Laws" which commented upon the similar British "Anti-Hooligan" laws passed by the Blair government. The comments in that article apply with equal force to the Regina so-called "anti-bullying" bylaw. The results reported in the press respecting abuses of civil liberties under this law in Britain will happen in Regina as long as the bylaw is allowed to stand and is enforced.

Civil Liberties Under Attack Again in Canada

2006-01-02T22:33:00.000-06:00

Why is it that Conservative thinkers seem to be the only ones concerned about the state of civil liberties in Canada? An example of that is George Jonas' recent article in the National Post entitled: First the Punishment, then the Trial. He refers to a proposed e-mail interecept law and property seizure laws which come into effect before wrongdoing is proven. Other examples include Canadian state authorities arresting, detaining, and jailing several people indefinitely without trial or other recourse under new pro-fascist laws.

Crises such as continued international terrorism,and even continuing problems such as the illegal drug trade and child pornography provide the ready excuse for governments to enact draconian legislation, i.e., arrest and imprisonment and/or confiscation of property without recourse to open courts, supposedly targeted against terrorists and criminals, but readily useable against everyone. Canadians are collectively so docile and stupid that little serious opposition or criticism to these measures has become apparent.

Having come from a social democratic background I used to expect, when I was a naive youth, a storm of protest from social democrats and other "democrats" against such attacks on the rule of law, but no longer. My first awakening occurred in October of 1970 when the Ottawa Liberals invoked martial law across Canada in order to intimidate and defeat a civic coalition that was threatening to unseat corrupt Mayor Jean Drapeau in a Montreal election. Of course, the ostensible justification for such a draconian measure was the kidnapping of a British diplomat and the murder of Quebec cabinet minister Pierre LaPorte by a small gang of urban terrorists whom the Quebec police and the RCMP had under close surveillance. It has become well known since that the police could have moved in and arrested the terrorists before LaPorte's murder, but they were instructed to hold off and just watch them. The obvious reason for that political decision was to prolong the phony "crisis" and allow the imposition of martial law with the power to arrest and detain people without charge at the whim of the authorities in order to disrupt the election in Montreal.

The public's knee-jerk reaction to this event was revealing, as illustrated by the New Democratic Party's response. None of the leadership of these so-called "democrats", except Tommy Douglas, dared to speak out against the massive overkill of martial law. This he did at an NDP convention in Saskatchewan in November of 1970. He was roundly criticized by Saskatchewan NDP cabinet ministers, who mused out loud that his criticism came about because his mind must have become unhinged by the false arrest of his protester daughter in California as a possible political undesireable.

In all my years as a lawyer and an active civil libertarian neither the Liberals nor the NDP have evidenced serious concerns about repressive laws. The Liberals have merrily enacted such laws and the self-described "representatives of the people" - the NDP - followed along like puppy dogs.

The latest examples of such duplicity and disregard for civil liberties include the post 9-11 anti-terrorist law enacted by the federal Liberals, allowing the police to arrest and detain "suspected" terrorists indefinitely without the usual rights to due process, including habeus corpus, bail, and protections against self-incrimination, as well as to hold secret trials where the accused is not entitled to confront and question his accusers [like our "friends" and exemplars, the fascists and the communists]. The second is the bill introduced into Parliament in November, 2005, by the Minister of State Security and Secret Police, Anne McLellan, which invades every Canadian's privacy and communications. It is aimed at enabling police to intercept e-mail communications by forcing Internet providers to intercept messages and give them to the police.

Once again, normal protections forming part of due process and respect for civil liberties are sidestepped. Having reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person's communications contain information about illegal activities or plans, is not required, nor are the victims of such surveillance required to be informed of the interceptions at any time, so that everyone's communications and privacy are at risk, without adequate oversight or checks against police and secret police excesses.

Of course, Commissar McLellan was at at pains to raise the bogey"person" of the child pornographer as a justification for such a anti-democratic law, hoping that the public disgust with pornographers would obscure the true face of government excess.

If the true enemy is the terrorist, then our laws should be specifically targeted against terrorists, and since today's terrorism comes primarily from a certain kind of fundamentalist and highly-intolerant Muslim or from Sikhs importing sectarian violence from the homeland to Canada, the laws should be targeted in their directions. Fear of being branded anti-Muslim, or anti-Sikh, should not be an excuse to enact laws that target every citizen indiscriminately, whether law abiding or not.

Likewise, the existence of the few child pornographers among us is no reason to invade everyone's privacy with laws that target every citizen indiscriminately.

It is not good enough to argue that excesses and mistakes will be guarded against and reduced to a minimum by leaving the decisions up to the discretion of designated police or CSIS officials. Power of that sort is always misused and it is too much to expect of the police that they will always be wise, kind and careful. All of the evidence in the world demonstrates that such power has been and will continue to be abused by authorities with unchecked power. Besides, this is not an honest debate. The Liberals truly don't believe what they say and clearly don't care. They only want to appear to be taking action against the night creatures of public fears.

Not only are many of those that purport to govern us corrupt, stupid and venal, as the Gomery Commission's and the Auditor Generals' investigations so eloquently revealed, they are also anti-democratic and power-mad. Wake up voters, there is an election in the offing. Punish the bastards.

Kyoto Update - Prime Minister Martin and U.S. Ambassador Slug It Out

2005-12-18T22:23:00.000-06:00

Kyoto Flap With U.S. Ambassador

PM Martin chastised the Americans during the recent Montreal conference on the environment, and during the current election campaign, for refusing to accept the Kyoto Protocol even though it seems beyond doubt that the U.S. has, as deliberate policy, outperformed Canada in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The U.S. Ambassador was right to respond. All Martin was interested in was a cheap shot to make him appear to be standing up to the U.S., in the hopes of gaining some votes against the other political parties.

In respect of Kyoto, all the Liberal government seems, at the moment, to be intending, is to rob Canadian taxpayers by planning to transfer great gobs of money to undeserving 3rd world countries who are continuing to make great strides in the wrong direction - increasing their emissions and industrical pollution. This is the so-called carbon credits industrial countries can "purchase" to atone for being industrial countries. It won't do anything to reduce world emission levels.

Canadians seem to be singularly uninformed about, or at least unconcerned with, this prospect. The money the Liberal's will ultimately channel to 3rd world polluters, like China, is going to make the cost of Adscam, the gun registry, the federal sponsorship program and Martin's daycare plans, seem like a drop in the bucket. Perhaps that is the same bucket covering out collective heads.

None of the leaders during the November 17th, 2005, debate touched on this major issue. Everyone seems to have accepted the legitimacy of the Kyoto Agreement as a matter of fact. Yet, there is overwhelming evidence that the basis for the Kyoto Agreement is false because the determination made by the proponents of Kyoto that human agency has contributed significantly to global warming is not established. The most likely culprit in the growth of global warming is the variable activity of the Sun, which is the major engine of Earth's weather and temperature patterns. In view of that, committing to policies which may very well impoverish the country, based on fairy tales and romantic assumptions, is extremely foolish and misguided. The Liberal gun control program is another example of foolish and misguided policies based on unproven assumptions and expenditures committed for political, rather than practical and sensible, reasons. This is a hallmark of Liberal policy.

A multitude of respected and reputable scientists, including many whose expertise relates directly or at least closely to factors affecting the environment have severely criticized the environmental lobby and its so-called experts for sloppy research and sloppy and unsupported conclusions, challenging the notions upon which Kyoto has been founded.

It appears that the lobby epitomized by David Suzuki and the support of many journalists has frightened enough of the public, including the politicians, to ensure support for Kyoto, evidence or no evidence, facts or no facts.

I, for one, am grateful that the U.S. government under George W. Bush, has had the good sense to refuse to buy into the foolishness. Yet, realizing that global warming is a fact, and that we should not be contributing to it, no matter how little overall effect our contributions have, the Bush administration and U.S. industry have made real efforts to reduce emissions, outpacing any efforts in or by Canada.

This is the avenue Canada should be moving down - devising domestic policies aimed at reducing pollution and emissions, using the money that might have been used to pay those so-called "carbon credits" to defray the admittedly high cost of such policies, rather than throwing it away. Any benefits from spending that money in Canada would accrue where they belong - at home.

Deliberate Over-Taxation - No Better Than Theft

2005-08-24T20:11:00.000-06:00

Deliberate Over-Taxation Is Theft.

There is some legitimacy to the view that, in a democratic country, the government is entitled, by the consent of its subjects, to forceably confiscate wealth [taxation] to pay for the cost of government and the services it provides.

Where that legitimacy is undermined or even destroyed is when, in a nominal democracy like Canada, the government is not accountable or responsible to its subjects, and it not only constantly and consistently confiscates more wealth than is actually needed for the above-stated purposes, but it diverts that wealth to partisan purposes, contrary to the needs and interests of its subjects. In so doing, it is no better than a country run by thugs and theives, like ByeloRussia, Zimbabwe or the ilk.

That is the case in Canada and has been the case for too long. Enormous surpluses of taxation revenue, estimated to grow to over $9 Billion in fiscal 2005-2006, and in a similar range in the past few years, reflect a combination of incompetent fiscal management and governing-party greed. Perhaps these funds are sought by the Liberals to fund additional, yet undiscovered, scandalous excesses like the Adscam money-grab, the gun registry debacle, the pilfering of the Employment/Unemployment funds, or the HRDC give-aways, but these are not legitimate reasons for confiscation of subjects' money.

I do not consider the Liberal government as legitimate, ruling as it has for many years without the voting support of a real majority of Canadians. Our governmental structure also places and retains too much power in the hands of the Prime Minister and an out-of-control bureaucracy, and too little in the hands of Members of Parliament and a Senate that ought to be elected. Canadian government has for too many years been more of a dictatorship than a democratic institution. Because of this history, the apparent consent of the governed is largely illusory and meaningless.

Given this analysis, the confiscation of subjects' wealth, resulting in obscene surpluses, is nothing better than theft and plunder.

A good beginning towards righting this wrong would be to return the confiscated wealth to those it was taken from. This could involve tax cuts for the future, to ensure that the theft does not continue, and refunds to those of us whose wealth was stolen. Nothing less would suffice.

Another good step would be create laws allowing criminal prosecution of our politicians for their outrageous behaviour. How can we be so anxious to criminally prosecute business executives whose avarice and greed has defrauded investors and, at the same time, ignore a similar kind of behaviour by politicians? Should I hold my breath in expectation of fairness and justice? Not bloody likely!

On an aside, but nevertheless a related issue, why does a large segment of the electorate, primarily Ontarians, continue to support the Liberals despite their record of greed, dishonesty and theft? I have never been a Conservative supporter, but I cannot undertand how they could be any worse than that?

European Cowardice Re: Islamist Terrorism

2005-08-16T19:51:00.000-06:00

I couldn't have described it better. So here is a biting criticism of the timidity of liberal Europe's response to Islamist Terrorism. Since Canada's response is so similar to Europe's, this article applies with equal force to the Liberal regime and the cowards of Canada.

Our biggest problem in dealing honestly with the looming threat of Islamist violence and terror is the legacy of mind-rot created by Trudeau's multiculturalist policies, which have resulted in Canadians being ashamed of Canadian values and virtues and an unwillingness to demand of Islamists and other immigrants that they conform to our values instead of us adapting to and conforming to theirs.

===========================================================================

Matthias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in DIE WELT, which is Germany's largest daily newspaper, against the timid reaction of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat.

============================================================================

EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE

(Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless Agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman, suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance", now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt UN Oil-for-Food program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement ........

How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany.

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath
of the fanatical Islamists.

One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring European "Peace In Our Time".

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement ........

How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany.

One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chambeerlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring European "Peace in our Time".

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway,an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians,
directed against our free, open Western societies and intent upon western Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.

Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement .... Reagan and Bush.

His American critics may quibble over the details; but, we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush,
supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive centre of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.

On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians,
directed against our free, open Western societies and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or improving our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation, or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists". To understand and forgive.

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewellery when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbour's house.

Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice!

Security Orders (S. 810 Ciminal Code) Homolka and Us.

2005-07-17T16:47:00.000-06:00

Carla Homolka Gets A Raw Deal And So Do We.

I was appalled when I read about how Homolka's freedom was going to be restricted after serving her full sentence and just how easily it was done. Now, don't get me wrong. I am as disgusted by her crime as you no doubt are and would gladly have seen her executed for it, or at least sentenced to life in prison. But the authorities, in their 'wisdom', made a deal with her. However, I guess I did not realize just how easily section 810 of the criminal code could [and would] be used and abused in this case.

I have heard very little in the way of criticism of the use of section 810 in this case. All it takes to 'justify' such action is a notorious and high profile case - one where the public is guaranteed to be willing to countenance any legal excess, such as allowing the prosecutors to misuse the weapons hidden within the criminal code.

In a different context, similar misuse of prosecutorial power has already occurred numerous times in the also-notorious sex abuse prosecutions in this country where absurdities, such as testimony that "children do not lie" was given by over-zealous so-called experts, trading on our fears, resulted in false prosecutions and the destruction of the lives of many individuals.

All that is required under section 810 is for 'any person who fears .........that another person will cause personal injury to them, their spouse, common-law partner or child, or damage his or her property' providing that that fear is based on 'reasonable grounds', to initiate a criminal court case designed to impose a prior restraint against someone who has not committed an offence.

The wording and historical context of this section makes it clear that it was designed to be used against men who are seen as potentially violent threats to their wives or who might seize their children. In this context it has been used many times, often in circumstances where it has been an ineffective, but the only, tool aimed at preventing threatened real violence.

Where there is real and reliable proof of prior violence directed against the complainant, or similar proof of actual threats of harm made to the complainant, section 810 has its place.

A study of the case law relating to the cases in which it has been used will reveal that often the courts have only imposed it where there has been evidence of prior violence aimed at a specific person or of threats of violence against a specific person.

It was never intended as a general catch-all to be invoked by persons who have generalised fears of violence never actually directed at themselves. Such fears are usually held by persons suffering from paranoid delusions.

Even in the limited context of matrimonial violence, it has too often been the case that wives, seeking to paint their husbands as evil, violent men for the purpose of depriving them of access to their children, have lied or exaggerated the facts to accomplish their purposes by obtaining a restraining order under section 810. That, unfortunately, is all too common a behaviour.

But it does illustrate that this is the kind of law that lends itself to extreme subjectivity and self-servingness. And it works against the unfortunate who get caught in its snare.

What sort of protections are there in the law against abuse of this section? Fewer than would be available in the ordinary criminal case. For instance, a judge does not have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that reasonable grounds for the alleged fears exist [this is the criminal law burden of proof against an accused]. All he must be is 'satisfied' by the evidence that the complaining person has reasonable grounds for his fears. In practise, this can mean as little evidence as "He has beat me before and I fear him now".

In ordinary criminal cases, a court may not consider or hear evidence of an accused's disposition for violence when considering the issue of guilt or innocence. Yet, in section 810 cases, this long-standing common-law protection does not apply to an accused because, after all, he is not being technically charged with an offence when a S.810 proceeding is being dealt with.

Despite the laxity of the rules of evidence adopted by this section, should the accused person refuse to sign a recognizance as ordered, accepting the restraint, or to fail to obey the restraint order, he can be imprisoned for up to 12 months.

In a nice use of legal sophistry [use of an invalid, but seemingly sound argument or proposition] the courts have held that section 810 does not amount to the charging of an offence [presumably they reason that the power to put someone in prison is based on that person's refusal to accept the restraining order or their disobediance of an order, which is similar to the way in which civil injunctions work].

Neverhtheless, it is the criminal courts that are being resorted to and the Criminal Code that contains S.810, and the result of a refusal to sign the required undertaking or obey the order is imprisonment.

Having determined that section 810 does not create an offence, then it follows that the ordinary rules of evidence do not need to apply to the making of an order.

But it is a criminal offence to disobey a lawful court order. Section 810 clearly says that the judge can commit the accused to prison. The only and direct result of a refusal by an accused to accept the restraint is imprisonment. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck .......!

The penalty of imprisonment for up to 12 months is more draconian than the result of most convictions for serious crimes, where the penalty can vary from a recording of no conviction, suspended sentence or fine, to a short sentence or a sentence reduced by remission rules, etc., with, for example, persons convicted of assault causing bodily harm getting out of prison after serving less time in custody than a person who refuses to sign a recognizance and to accept a restraining order.

In the Homolka case, I don't see how any specific person can truly and honestly claim to 'fear on reasonable grounds that' [Homolka] 'will cause personal injury' to them. Was evidence heard at the hearing that Homolka made any threats against anyone? I am not aware of any. Since she has been in jail for 12 years, there can be no evidence that, except in respect of the charge(s) for which she was convicted, she harmed any member of the public.

In this regard she is in the same position as any other criminal who has been convicted of an offence involving violent acts. Should they all be hounded after serving their times in jail? If, in Homolka's case, public fears [in general, notoriously unreasonable and often whipped up by journalistic sensationalism] and public hatred or disgust by themselves amount to 'reasonable grounds', then every violent criminal who has been released after serving his full sentence should be subjected to a restraining order hearing. This was not the intent of section 810 when it was created.

There will be some who will argue that evidence was given that she was 'unreprentant' and likely to 're-offend'. I take guesses about her future behaviour based on such evidence with a giant bucket of salt.

It is all supposition and guess-work of the crudest kind. Without commenting on any actual psychiatrists or social workers who may have given evidence in the Homolka case, and I have not read or heard any such testimony, it is well known in the legal profession and by criminal court judges that many psychiatrists and social workers identify with the side that calls them to testify and that their testimonies often coincide with the theory of the case advanced by the side that called them to testify. That is why I have heard experienced judges say, in private, that they often do not rely on psychiatric evidence. Witness the validity of social workers' evidence given in several recent notorious sex-abuse cases in Saskatchewan where people were wrongly charged or convicted on such evidence, in one case later refuted by the very children [now adults] who were alleged to have been victims.

Why does this matter? Surely Homolka deserves whatever she gets, some will argue. However, real justice demands fairness and an absence of arbitrariness. The lack of these characteristics is one of the things we detest about the way laws are made and enforced in other, less-democratic or non-democratic countries. To accept instances of non-democratic laws and law enforcement is to abdicate our rights in favour of the arbitrary power of the state, or to the fears and prejudices of the mob, or to both. This is one of those instances.

Will the witch hunts ever go away? I guess not. The price of freedom is constant vigilance.

Political Party Greed and Taxpayer Rip-Off

2005-05-17T15:48:00.000-06:00

The lead May 13th editorial in the National Post - Of Enron and Adscam - was "on the money" in more ways than one.

Canada's political parties, and I mean all of them, have been ripping off the taxpayer for years.

These rip-offs include their incompetent or dishonest wastage of taxpayers' money on ill-conceived, bungling projects and programs [Saskatchewan's potato warehousing project, B.C.'s ferries, and Ottawa's numerous boondoggles of the past 5 years, just to name a few]. They also include the wholesale stealing of taxpayers' money diverted to party and crony coffers revealed by the Gomery Inquiry.

And to make matters worse, most governing parties, with the collusion of opposition parties, have given themselves the key to the bank vault by enacting extremely generous legislated schemes to enrich themselves by means of election expense subsidies. As if it wasn't enough that they will garner many millions of dollars to pay for their elections campaigns and election apparatus, the parties and many candidates have often exaggerated their expense claims in order to maximize the rip-off.

One of the touted justifications for the federal subsidy system was to eliminate reliance on donations from corporations and unions. However, all that seems to have accomplished is to drive those donations underground, under the table, and out of sight.

Attempts have been made from time to time to make the donation and subsidy systems operating across Canada open and transparent, including the requirement that election expenses be audited. Obviously, there are some MP's that are not happy with the general skulduggery that seems to characterize election financing. Jack Mintz, president of the C.D. Howe Institute, suggests that party officials should be required to personally certify that their "financial statements are accurate and that internal controls are present to ensure the truthfulness of information". This sounds fine, but the experience of Saskatchewan casts some doubt on its effectiveness.

In Saskatchewan, each financial statement [a "return"] relating to election expenses, must include the support documentation behind the statement, must be audited by an auditor chosen by the party and/or candidate, and must be certified as accurate and in compliance by the party/candidate financial agent.

The statements are then sent to the Chief Electoral Officer who must immediately examine them and certify to the finance department, if it is the case, that the party or candidate is eligible for reimbursement [has the required percentage of the vote], that the statement has been audited by an auditor chosen by the party or candidate, and has been certified as accurate by the party's or candidate's financial agent, and state the total amount reported in the statement.

On this basis, relying solely on the party/candidate audit and the agent's certification of accuracy, 75% of the claimed reimbursement based on the statement is then paid out to the party or candidate. After that, the Chief Electoral Officer has 90 days to do an actual audit of the return.

What is wrong with this? Simply put, the party/candidate audits in Saskatchewan have been notoriously cursory, amounting to a virtual rubber stamp of the accuracy of the statement. In practise, many of the statements audited by the CEO after past elections have been found to be incomplete, with legally-required support documentation missing, or claims have been exaggerated or just plain improper.

The upshot of this is that party/candidate audits have often been useless and unreliable and the agent's certifications have been meaningless, if not dishonest. The 75% paid in advance of a real audit, based on the statements, have often exceeded the amounts the parties/candidates were truly entitled to receive as determined by an effective audit. Consequently, they have had little incentive to promptly, and some cases, ever, comply with requests for a return of over-payments.

Mr. Mintz also suggests that party finance committees should be peopled by persons who are financially literate - not party hacks distinguished solely by their loyalty.

In Saskatchewan, the latter is most often the case. As Chief Electoral Officer between 1992 and 1997 I found that New Democrat party and candidate agents responsible for overseeing the management of election financing were frequently ignorant or disdainful of the reporting requirements and unable or unwilling to distinguish between eligible and ineligible expenses and were also unwilling to make an effort to become financially knowlegable. Of course, their continual poor reporting habits convinced me that the party leadership was happy to see this condition continue.

These same comments apply, more or less, to the other parties, although the Liberal party made a token effort to learn about reporting requirements. However, it had little effect on subsequent reporting by their party and candidates.

During the last Saskatchewan election, some candidates, and I don't know how widespread it was, adopted "la methode in-out", that was outlawed by Parliament a few years ago, after its wide-spread adoption by the Bloc Quebecois, and by some other federal candidates.

This method enabled a candidate to make a phony payment for services rendered and donated to a campaign in exchange for an immediate donation of the same amount to the candidate, enabling the candidate to inflate his election expenses and claimed reimbursement. Contractual service providers were then entitled to claim an income tax deduction. It is doubtful that all of those service providers showed the "payments" as income in their income tax returns.

What is my point? The cavalier treatment of the public purse by the political parties is so widespread that I despair of hoping for or expecting honesty and integrity from politicians of any stripe.

Only strong legislation that creates election expense auditing bodies federally and provincially with not only the power and the resources to conduct independent forensic audits, but the right and duty to independently prosecute transgressors, has a hope of reversing current trends.

I am not holding my breath in anticipation of positive changes.

Politicians and Whores (Is There A Difference?)

2005-04-30T15:56:00.000-06:00

Here is my take on the budget deal between Layton's NDP and the Liberals.

Just as long as NDP leader Layton is able to get his way, he is prepared to lie in bed with the Liberals. And why should that be surprising? After all, an NDPer is just a Liberal in a little bigger hurry and with a slightly more loony agenda [Remember Alexa McDonough and "Everyone earning $60,000 per year is rich and should be taxed to death" (this is not a direct quote) - whoops! - that applies to most union bosses and many union staff].

Besides, the NDP is as much a pig as the Liberal and other parties are at the election reimbursements trough, all trying to grab as much taxpayers' money as possible for inflated election expenses. It obviously doesn't matter to the NDP that Layton and the NDP are, as a result of that deal, helping to support and condone the scandalous behaviour of the Liberal Party of Canada involving the rip-off of many millions of dollars of taxpayers' hard-earned money.

The NDP wants to prevent tax cuts to corporations [where most of our retirement funds are being generated] and spend that money instead on the unions [where do you think most social services costs go?], or throw it down the drain for foreign aid and Kyoto.

Don't get me wrong. If foreign aid money was spent wisely and carefully, if that is possible, it would be a good thing, but most foreign aid is administered so incompetently and blindly that it mostly makes the corrupt politicians and their friends in other countries rich.

China, for example, is beating our pants off on trade, but we are still wasting money on foreign aid to China. If money were wisely spent on environmental matters, that would be OK, but implementing the Kyoto Accord, based on faulty pseudo-scientific notions, will only serve to bankrupt this country and make us all poorer without having any appreciable or meaningful effect on global warming.

Canada is suffering from an inbound direct investment shortage because corporations that might have invested here are going elsewhere where tax burdens and union wages are not so onerous. Goodbye jobs, goodbye economic development, unless the government does something to reduce its take.

The government has now brought down several budgets with enormous surpluses. What this means is that taxpayers, including the corporations, have been grossly over-taxed in the first place. We should all be getting this over-taxation surplus back. It was our money until it was hi-jacked by Ottawa. This is, if not outright theivery, at the very least, a breach of the trust we place in our elected governments. Tax cuts right now would not be a gift or corporate welfare, but a re-imbursement of money improperly taken.

An election right now could sweep the streets clean. Lets see if another government and another party will change things for the better.

British Adoption Of Anti-Democracy Laws

2005-04-18T18:08:00.000-06:00

Britain does not have a written constitution or a Charter of Rights, the
Magna Carta notwithstanding. It also has a unitary government, although
some autonomy in some matters has been allowed to Scotland and possibly
to Wales. Unitary governments tend to be less democratic because of the
concentration of power in one locus.

Britain has also had a long-standing problem with Norther-Irish terrorism,
both in Northern-Ireland and on the main island. British civil liberties have
suffered in the past as a result of draconian measures adopted to deal with
terrorism. So it is not a far stretch from special laws to target terrorism to
special laws to target hooliganism, a problem which has plagued Britain for
several decades. Tony Blair's Labour government has created a new legal
monster which destroys civil liberties and which is difficult, if not impossible,
to contstrain.

A new law, introduced in 1999 and expanded in 2003, allows a local
government [municipalities] and police to obtain "anti-social behaviour
orders" [ ASBOs] against individuals on flimsy grounds without adequate
proof [hearsay can be resorted to] in respect of behaviour such as
displaying suicidal tendencies, failing to securely corral your farm animals,
carrying condoms if you are a prostitute, using the word "grass", throwing
rhubard or speaking sarcastically to neighbors. The law permits orders to
be made against anyone displaying anti-social behaviour "causing or likely
to cause harassment, alarm or distress."

The definition is so broadly worded that mere annoyances can be caught
by it. The definition of "distress" is such a subjective thing that it depends
on the alleged "victims's" perceptions and susceptibilities, not on some
reasonable and objective standard. In other words, it is a nightmare for
anyone who offends another persons sensibilities, because that seems to
be all it takes to have an order made against you.

Why is this such a dreadful attack on civil liberties? It is such because,
based on the making of such an order, should the person against whom
the order was made disobey it, a criminal charge can be prosecuted and
the accused is subject to up to 5 years imprisonment for merely
breaching the order.

In other words, it is possible for the municipal
authorities and the police to create a myriad of criminal offences,
customized to suit the occasion.

Our usual concept of criminal law is that the governing legislature
passes criminal laws affecting the entire nation after open and public
debate, publishes them, and then enforces them. This concept has been
thrown out the window. Criminal offences then become a matter of local
whim and prejudice.

This is, indeed, a characteristic of the arbitariness
of state and police treatment of people in dictatorships such as
Nazi-Germany, the Soviet Union, Iran, Myanmar, and a host of other
Muslim countries. It is also characteristic of the attitudes of
those who call themselves socialists, who are so certain of their
righteous correctness that they not only tolerate such laws, but
bring them into being.

Buying Kyoto Credits: I Don't Get It

2005-04-16T12:24:00.000-06:00

In the April 10th, 2005, National Post Andrew Coyne claims "-it's how much emissions are reduced, not where." - and - "If it is cheaper for us to purchase credits from other nations than to make reductions at home, that is exactly what we should do...".

This makes absolutely no sense to me, particularly when one examines the examples, i.e., where the so-called credits can be purchased. One instance Coyne cited is from Russia. But the reason Russia has so-called credits to sell is that, due to the crash of Communism, and the collapse of many of its inefficient command economy factory enterprises, it is no longer capable of creating the same level of pollution as it once was. Paying Russia will not reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere. That is already happening, but not because of any enlightened policies or efforts on Russia's part. So, Canada's paying Russia will not reduce emissions. The same reasoning applies to many other less-developed countries whose economies neverwere nor are now capable of spewing emissions into the world atmosphere.

Is this stupid plan a thinly disguised foreign aid scheme? That is all it seems capable of doing. In any event, it will backfire in spades as far as its foolish ostensible purpose. Why? With the million, or perhaps billions of dollars, our dumb government may give them, they will become more capable of creating more industries which will then increase their total carbon emissions. What a scheme! The wordcockamamy comes to mind.

More on Canadian Liberal Attacks on Democracy

2005-04-13T13:11:00.000-06:00

Another piece of stupid legislation is about to emerge from the colon of wisdom in Ottawa: a bill before a parliamentary committee promising to strengthen Canada's law against child pornography at the expense of education, art, literature and freedom of speech and expression.

If passed, the bill's provisions will censor and outlaw any educational, artistic or cultural description or depiction of children in the context of sexuality. Even books or articles written about sex education will be caught in the legal web created by such a law. No doubt the supporters of such an outrage will defend their handiwork by claiming that Canadian judges will prevent artists and writers from being criminalized for creating "legitimate" works [educational texts, works of literature, etc.].

The problem is that charges will be laid by ignorant police officers, often goaded by loony interest groups and "activists", based on the bill's expanded, loosely worded and highly subjective definitions of allegedly harmful material. This harrassment, involving costly legal
defences, will create a significant chill, itself preventing truly legitimate writers and artists from discussing or including reference to material that might be deemed by those police or interest groups to be pornography, whether or not the writers or artists might be eventually
acquitted of any offences charged.

As well, there is no reasonable guarantee that the courts will protect free speech and legitimate works, as illustrated by the subjectivity displayed by many judges and the willingness of those same judges to embrace the same hysteria evidenced by the very existence of theproposed law itself.

Alan Borovy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and a long time opponent of overweaning and unnecessary governmental attacks upon civil liberties, characterizes the problem created by the proposed law very nicely: "...the subject matter of
education, art, and literature cannot be appropriately confined to birds, flowers and cans of soup." Parliamentarians and those bureaucrats who dreamed up this new horror cannot seem to get it. Lets hope that exposing their crassness and stupidity to the light of criticism may help them get it.

Perhaps they are not part of a conspiracy to destroy democracy bit by bit. Perhaps they are just too stupid to know what they are doing. Given the eagerness with which politicians embrace corruption [note the latest mess exposed daily during the Gomery Inquiry], the latter is
likely closer to the truth.

More On What's Happening To Canadian Democracy?

2005-04-05T17:43:00.000-06:00

Another short newspaper story from Quebec once again reminds me of the
constant assaults on democracy sponsored by the One Governing Party.

As of April 4th, 2005, the Quebec Court of Appeal has ruled that it is
illegal for Canadians to purchase U.S. television prgramming.
Naturally, the supporters of this outrage include the corporate
broadcasters and their Liberal cronies. And these a-- h---- cloak
themselves in double-talk and double-think by calling themselves the
Coalition Against Satellite Signal Theft. What unmitigated B.S. and gall!

According to such giants of truth and logic, to purchase U.S. television
programming is theft. The real truth is that Bell ExpressVu and Star
Choice and the host of other cable companies who make billions off the
backs of Canadian television viewers, wail and rail against the claimed
loss of $400 million a year to U.S. satellite television providers. We
wouldn't be jumping throught the extra hoops to buy U.S. programming if
Canadian content was as desireable - quality-wise, selection-wise and
price-wise.

Ham-handed and dick-headed government policies created and enforced by
Liberal Ottawa's Commissars of Culture deny Canadians cultural freedom
of choice and expression [supposedly protected by the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms] and apply draconian measures - police persecution and
enormous fines. And some of the judges, appointed by the Liberal Prime
Minister, are not doing their jobs - protecting those Rights and Freedoms.

The communist regimes of the Soviet Union were not much worse in
enforcing communist culture on their populace.

Canada's Slide Towards A Police State

2005-03-24T21:21:00.000-06:00

Canada's Slide Towards A Police State

I'd like to use a short-hand word like "fascism" to label Canada's attacks on the rule of law, but "fascism" has a historical context that is only appropriate to label several 20th century European examples of the use of arbitrary state power and the abandonment or lack of a true rule of law. In any event, how many Canadians know who Hitler, Mussolini and General Franco were and what they represented? So the term "police state" may be more appropriate. Another possible applicable term is "totalitarianism", but the word can't be found in many older versions of common dictionaries, and most people would not gain an immediately clear idea of the concept from that word. So, "police state", with its implications of the arbitrary use of state power and the lack of a rule of law protecting civil rights, is the most appropriate short-hand term I can use.

All too often in the last twenty years or so I have seen a strong tendency towards governmental, police and prosecutorial decisions being improperly influenced by interest-group demands and considerations to the detriment of individual civil rights. Canada's hate crimes laws are a telling example of this. The interest group most catered to in this case is the B'Nai Brith. Likewise, some of the changes in sexual assault laws, such as the doing away with the need for corroboration of an accuser's story when assessing the credibility of evidence of sexual assault, illustrates this tendency. The interest group most catered to in this case is the feminist lobby. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association strongly advised the government that the advocacy of harm to identifiable groups or persons was already made criminal by various sections of the Criminal Code and that a broadened set of new laws was unnecessary and harmful to the rule of law. They were ignored, solely in the interests of appeasing vocal lobby groups.

The Keegstra and Zundel cases are concrete examples of policies adopted to appease noisy interest groups overriding civil rights and the rule of law. This is especially flagrant in Zundel's case, where, despite an extra-ordinary long residence in Canada, and no crime having been committed by Zundel, he was deported on the basis of secret evidence and procedures outside of the rule of law by the actions of the secret police (CSIS) and the government. Don't get me wrong - Zundel is a foolish man who spouted wrong-headed notions about the Nazi Holocaust (there is no evidence that he did anything else). However, being a fool is not reasonable grounds for arbitrary arrest, detention, and deportation under any lawyer's or knowledgeable layman's understanding of the rule of law.

What is this rule of law? It is, according to Canada's Constitution, the collection of so-called "fundamental rights", including - a) not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned; b) to be promptly informed upon arrest or detention of the reasons therefor; and c) to have the validity of an arrest or detention to be determined by way of habeus corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful. Every one of these rights has been ignored and denied in Zundel's case.

The introduction of the Gun Control Act incorporating police-state powers of warrantless home invasion and arbitrary search and seizure is another example of the government denying and abandoning the rule of law. The Charter, once again, provides that arbitrary search and seizure is unlawful. The feminist lobby was once again a significant factor in influencing the Liberal Government to enact such a law.

The Charter of Rights also enshrines the rights to a fair trial once criminal charges have been laid. But can a trial such as was accorded Officer Popowich and other Martinsville, Saskatchewan, accused in the notorious sex-abuse case, be considered a fair trial? Doesn't a fair trial imply, not only a fair and impartial decision by the presiding judge, but fairness and the absence of a witch-hunt mentality on the part of the police, the prosecutors and other professionals involved? Almost everyone involved, except the judge, appeared to have been swept up in the poisonous environment created by man-hating feminists over the past 30 years. This environment included testimony before our courts by psychologists and social workers that "children never lie" about important matters (contrary to most parents' child-rearing experience), as well as testimony that "recovered memory" (purportedly memories hidden for decades in the dark recesses of one's mind) can be valid and sufficient to convict a man of sexual assault. Shamefully, some otherwise sensible judges accepted this nonsense. Recent research and scientific studies have demonstrated that such claims were wrong-headed and not based on reliable or demonstrable evidence or valid scientific studies.

Governments have a duty and responsibility to make every effort to ensure that such abuses of the judicial system do not happen, but in Saskatchewan, nothing was done and, indeed, the government refused or was reluctant to take any remedial action even when the abuses came to light.

I write this after reading George Jonas' recent article in The National Post entitled "Hooray for the rule of law". He cites the recent decision of Mr. Justice Josephson acquitting the Air India Bombing accused as upholding the rule of law, and cited a quote from the decision: "Justice is not achieved if persons are convicted on anything less that the requisite standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt." The main thrust of Mr. Jonas' article seems to be that such a notion needs to be affirmed over and over again because it is so often ignored.

Proportional Representation and Other Electoral Issues

2005-01-18T17:45:00.000-06:00

Is anything wrong with our current ways of electing representatives to parliament or provincial legislatures? A lot of people seem to think there is.

Proportional Representation - Boon or Bane?

British Columbia is considering adopting some form of proportional representation [PR], and some members of parliament are publicly supporting similar measures to govern federal elections. The supporters of these efforts to change the system argue that the adoption of PR will help to rekindle voter interest and reduce voter apathy.

Why does PR appeal to people? The primary reason is that the old standard rule [sometimes called "first-past-the-post'] means that a minority of those who vote in a constituency or riding often elect a member of a federal or provincial legislature, ignoring the wishes of the majority of voters. First-past-the-post [FPTP] rules developed in countries such as Britain to serve the election of candidates at a time when political parties had not become the dominant political force they are today. Today, without endorsation by a political party, it is practically impossible for a candidate to gain election. Political parties now so dominate politics and our legislatures that they have made the term "representative" meaningless. No elected person can safely risk alienating the party that endorsed him by voting to express the views of his constituents where those views run contrary to the received wisdom of policy dictated by the party's leadership. Consequently, elected members of legislatures only actually represent the views of their parties, at best, and of the leadership of those parties, at worst.

PR rules, on the other hand, appear to provide a way for most of the voters to participate in an election and have a real impact on the ability of political parties they support to appoint their members to legislatures. A form of modified PR can be adopted that allows a person to be elected at the riding level, but also permits the votes for other political parties [and/or candidates endorsed by them] to be allocated to those parties, permitting the party leadership to select persons from a prior list to become members of a legislature, providing the total number of votes for the party exceeds some pre-determined minimum. This is a form that has been adopted in other countries. Such a reform to our election system would likely result in members of new, small or just regional political parties gaining appointment to legislatures. It would bring about a broader representation of the views of more voters in our legislatures. Many people will see this as a valid reason to support the adoption of some form of PR in Canada.

Some worry that PR could also mean fragmentation of the composition of legislatures into parties that may not attain an overall majority, resulting in the need for coalition governments. That is, indeed, possible. But, again, many countries with PR-based systems and only minority legislative parties, have been successfully governed by coalitions.

Since PR could result in the election or appointment of candidates and parties representing a wider range of political opinions and of the voters supporting those opinions, and this is seen by most observers as a benefit and a broadening of democracy, and might result in greater voter interest and participation, are there any downsides or disadvantages to PR that might limit the hoped-for broader democracy?

The functioning and mechanics of PR systems in Europe are quite complex and difficult for voters to understand. There is a view that this has led to greater voter apathy and low voter turnout. It is possible that voters have realized that PR systems can actually perpetuate the survival and longevity of political parties and their top leadership. Under a PR system the ability voters had under FPTP to defeat unpopular cabinet ministers and politicians will be gone. Instead, the party hierarchy will be able to appoint friends and favourites to legislatures, even should they be unpopular with voters. Local candidates will become less important, as will local issues and concerns. Party discipline will be strengthened and dissenting views will not be tolerated. Under the current system, issues of party discipline and dissent are significant. It will likely become worse if PR is adopted. As party leaderships become more remote from voters, so may their decisions become less responsive to voter wishes and opinions. Should coalition governments become necessary and normal, so might the real policy choices presented to the voters be reduced or homogenized, leaving governing coalition leaderships in control of a virtual dictatorship.

Other Factors Which Do Not Create Voter Confidence

To be fair, the trend towards a virtual dictatorship exists federally in Canada under the current FPTP system. The life of the virtual one-party system that exists in federal Canada seems to have no end in sight. Many Canadians have watched this trend develop or hear descriptions of cronyism in the allotment of high-paying political appointments, or learn of other examples of corruption and mismanagement and waste of taxpayers' dollars. At the same time, voter turnouts have been falling at elections in many jurisdictions.

Another example of politicians' readiness to benefit themselves or their parties at the expense of taxpayers is the development and spread of taxpayer financing of political parties and electioneering.

Prior to 1996 the Saskatchewan Conservative and New Democrat parties blithely ignored parts of the election law requiring full and clear disclosure of all sources of political donations. It took an investigation into their failings accompanied by considerable press attention to prompt the legislature to adopt more stringent reporting requirements aimed at improving disclosure and the "transparency" of the sources of political funding. The changed law has improved transparency.

However, the political parties in most jurisdictions have been falling all over themselves in their frenzy to use tax revenues to perpetuate themselves in office. Saskatchewan has had a taxpayer funded electoral subsidy system for many years. As if the current level of tax-funded election politicking in Saskatchewan was not enough [close to one-third of election expenses are paid for by our tax dollars], the parties are clamouring for more. In addition, Saskatchewan has recently created a political donation tax credit system, using more taxpayers' dollars to reimburse partisan electors for part of their donations to political parties and candidates.

Even this generous-to-a-fault system is not enough for some candidates and parties, as illustrated federally by the efforts of Bloc Quebecois politicians to work and milk the system. Some of these efforts are highly questionable, although perhaps not illegal. Under scathing criticism from Canada's Chief Electoral Officer and others, Parliament recently amended the election law to forbid what had become quaintly described as "la methode in-out", a scheme whereby normally-unpaid organizers and other volunteers for the Bloc were paid salaries or other monies subject to agreements that they would "donate" the monies back to the parties or candidates. In some cases, no actual money changed hands, just exchanges of cheques, highlighting the artificial nature of the transactions. It would be interesting to discover whether or not the organizers and other volunteers who received such "payments" considered them as true income and reported them to the tax authorities. To make matters even worse, the organizers and other volunteers were able to claim tax credit benefits as a result of the "donations". With the introduction in 2001 of political contribution tax credits in Sasksatchewan similar tactics may soon be adopted by some provincial politicians and parties. No one has ever consulted taxpayers to find out if they are happy with these gifts to politicians and political parties.

Can Anything Be Done?

In order to fix the electoral system, a much more thorough examination of it failings, and the failings of the political parties, is needed, but, perhaps more cogently, since we all know more or less what is going on and don't need a formal commision to conduct an investigation, it is obvious that we need strong mechanisms right now to defend the voter and taxpayer against politicians and political parties. I suggest the selection of independent electoral auditors general, with strong investigative powers, and adequate financing, to scrutinize our federal and provincial electoral systems, to root out corruption and conflict-of-interest. This would help to generate a vigilant and informed public, which is, of course, the best weapon against self-interest and virtual dictatorship.

Native Government Folly

2004-12-14T01:18:00.000-06:00

A long time ago, when I was a young lawyer, I blindly supported the entrenchment of a "bill" or "charter" of rights into Canada's constitution. I could not understand why certain public figures, such as Allan Blakeney, former NDP premier of Saskatchewan, opposed the idea. Now, almost 25 years and many court decisions later, his wisdom has become paintfully clear. Not only have we seen the rampant development of judicial activism, whereby the prejudices and predelictions of a few unelected and socially remote judges have usurped the law-making power of legislatures and parliament, but the abdication of that power by cowardly and ignorant politicians happily ignoring painfull decisions by leaving them to the courts. The cases are legion, from the most recent creation of the right to marriage to state-paid financial rewards, such as pension rights, for homosexuals, to creating and expanding entitlements of all sorts to native Indians.

Canada has become a society of interest groups claiming entitlement to one "right" or another, meaning one set of "benefits" or another, resulting in a "culture of entitlement". This means that interest groups' desires are constantly elevated to the lofty realm of "rights", yet no corresponding obligations or duties are ever associated with those rights. This is most evident in regard to native land claims and demands for sovereignty. Most of the settlements and agreements establishing payments of money or allocations of lands, and particularly those creating some form of native government, do not include any obligation on natives to husband and develop their resources and emerge into some form of financial independence. In the great Liberal vision we hapless, and unconsulted, taxpayers will remain forever bound to bear the burden of maintaining native bureaucracies and governments.

The Tlicho Land Claims and Self Government Act, about to be entrenched beyond hope of change into our Constitution, is the latest example of this vision. That Act, amazingly, fetters part of Canada's sovereign right to enter into international treaties that might affect the Tlicho natives. It also gives them the right to ignore the Charter of Rights by entrenching racist policies in the governance of the new region. The Tlicho Agremement is not a "full and final" settlement, nor is anything said about the natives' obligations to pay income tax and to pay for their own governance and services. All of this will be automatically entrenched in the Constitution.

Such a stupid agreement will only serve to encourage future claims of equal or greater benefit to other native groups and which will be more and more onerous for future taxpayers. This represents Canada's "Culture of Entitlement" gone wild. Who is to blame for this? Primarily the Liberals and their supporters, and, ultimately, the Canadian electorate, who either approve of such policies or are too ignorant and apathetic to oppose them.

More On Ukraine

2004-12-04T21:50:00.000-06:00

The evidence keeps piling up. Now the Ukrainian Supreme Court has just vindicated Yuschenko and his supporters, finding that there was ample evidence of electoral fraud sufficient to invalidate the presidential election. It may be that there might be a new vote taken before Christmas, providing that the electoral machinery can be put into action by then.

Diane Francis, in Saturday's National Post, reported an interview with a Canadian businessman operating an oil exploration business in Crimea, wherein Taras Soltys states that as an election observer he saw election fraud, including people voting who gave non-existent addresses. He can also attest to political corruption severely hampering his business. He claims his business tried to regain drilling and production licenses after some of its oil field licenses were abruptly and inexplicably cancelled without justification, but was turned down, despite having won court cases against trumped up tax charges brought by the local government authorities. Other local insiders, including a son-in-law of outgoing President Leonid Kuchma, were granted licenses in nearby areas. They offered to split the revenues if his company put up the money and equipment for new drilling. He turned them down, convinced he never see any money. He likened Ukraine to a banana republic. Mr. Soltys may be forced by the corrupt policies to abandon his efforts and leave Ukraine.

More and more information is emerging to explain the roots of the divisions within the country.

Interestingly, the heavy industries and mining operations in the eastern Ukraine are not competitive in a global economy. Many of the oligarchs who own them gained their wealth and power at least partially as a result of sweetheart deals with local and central politicians. Although they pay their workers, who often work in dangerous, filthy and freezing conditions, poor wages, the workers consider themselves fortunate to have such jobs and income. This explains, in part, why they support Kuchma and Yanukovich. Apparently when Yuschenko was prime minister in 2000 and 2001 he closed some of the mines in the region as part of a national restructuring policy, depriving miners of incomes for a considerable time. Ukraine's miners are not very different from Canada's farmers and unionized workers whose plants have been closed or threatened with closure because of hard times or economic restructuring. They all want subsidies and handouts.

On the other hand, many people in the eastern Ukraine, believe that their opportunities for economic prosperity would increase if they were able to establish economic relations and ties with Europe, enabling them to participate in the global economy.

Ukraine - Almost A Basket Case

2004-12-03T23:41:00.000-06:00

The electoral mess in Ukraine is obviously a reflection of the economic and political state of a country which has not been able to move very far away from its sorry state under the heel of the Soviet Union. As in Russia, much of its movement towards the creation of a new economy is based on criminal or semi-criminal organizations, similar to the amassing of private wealth by the 19th century robber barons in countries like the U.S. and Canada. The leading figures in government have either been part of these organizations or dependent on them. In Ukraine the wealthy entrepreneurs who also wield political power are called "oligarchs". These are the people whose "friends" made a strong and effective effort to derail the electoral wishes of most of the citizenry, through threats, firings and other forms of intimidation of students, civil servants, army rank and file and any other groups that they could get at, and through using "absentee ballots" to permit their goons to stuff ballot boxes by multiple voting. It is interesting that in the industrialized and heavily ethnic-Russian east side of Ukraine many union members acted as goons and hooligans in support of the pro-Russian candidate Yanukovitch and his mentor, the outgoing-president. Yanukovitch is a twice-convicted criminal and Kuchma has been accused of some involvement in the death of a journalist who reported unfavourably about his government and its corruption.

The ordinary people, who are poor and near desparation, yearn for betterment, and look to democratic elections as at least one way to improve their lots. It was heartening, in the few days prior to the October 31st presidential election, to see the enthusiasm of the local election officials and the voters, who mastered a rather extensive set of laws and procedures, and then put them into effect in conducting what was, in most locations, an honest and effective election. This can be contrasted with some of the stumbling and uncertainties that accompanied the parliamentary election just two years ago.

The main "opposition" challenger, Yuschenko, while no "man of the people", personified two things - 1. opposition to the corrupt Kuchma regime; and 2. support for stronger ties with Europe - and for those reasons he had almost overwhelming support from the western side of Ukraine, the economy ofwhich is more agriculturally based, and which identifies more with Europe than with Russia.

Anu visitor to Ukraine who ventures into the agricultural countryside cannot fail to be impressed with two things: 1. the rich potential of its landbase for surplus food production; and 2. the equally dismal state of its productive capacity. The Soviet-created collective farms have not given way to more productive forms of organization, the workers on the farms are increasingly elderly and incapable of moving forward (many of the young people have left for the cities), and much of what is produced rots in the fields. As well, there is little storage capacity or ability to move large crops to market. Forms of land ownership, financing of ownership and of infrastructure, as well as of equipment acquisition, have not been developed so as to enable a transition from collective farming to other, more effective ways. Old attitudes, fostered by dependence on political decision making, did not educate people so as to enable them to exercise initiative and independence. Not much is being done to overcome these problems. In the rural areas people live in conditions equivalent to those in some third-world countries. I was warned not to get to close to any nuclear power facilities because their state of repair and maintenance was poor and another Chernobyl could happen at any time.

Such facts as these help to explain why the Ukrainian people were ready to demonstrate for days in Kyiv in order to force a new election.