Canada is Free and Freedom is Its Nationality

Sir Wilfrid Laurier

Friday, April 23, 2010


I have been very badly AWOL, writing research reports and rebuilding a website. And meanwhile all kinds of interesting stuff was happening that I have barely even covered.

The Euthanasia bill in the Canadian Parliament was defeated 228 to 59, which is only a close vote if you like Da Vinci Code genre history. Perhaps euthanasia gets less traction then abortion because everyone voting on abortion is in no danger of being aborted, whereas aging politicians...

I hate people who manufacture frivolous human rights. It is like some of the more PETAish animal rights activists. Do they not realize that they are not bringing animals up but dragging humans down? Do these human rights people not realize that by creating human rights that violate any iota of common sense they are only discrediting real human rights. And we thought that the human right not to be offended was extreme. What about the human right to go on government subsidized vacations? The human right! Not, this will stimulate the economy so we are going to invest in tourism. No, this is saying that people, especially students, the elderly, and those in difficult situations have the human right to go on vacation. You know there is a psychological phenomena that people who are in deep economic trouble tend to start spending more money under the rationalization that they will never get out of this pit anyway so they might as well spend whatever they have left before the creditors come flocking in. I wonder if that applies to nations too. We are so decadent and so indebted that we can think of nothing better to do than throw more money at nonsense. Worse than nonsense. Harmful nonsense. This kind of mindless socialism is like the ideological version of heroin. Expense, unsustainable, destructive, deadly... and addictive.

In better news, Ontario has decided to rethink their new sex-ed policy due to the Catholic Schools breaking into open revolt. So for the time being you will not have to worry about your eight year old receiving government mandated lectures on the warm fuzzies of homosexuality. You will just have to worry about him getting taught that anyway. Cheers all.

Stop the Presses, Ezra Levant is saying extraordinarily nice things about Ujjal Dosanjh. It's a regular little love fest over at and, I must say, not undeservedly. Even if Mr. Dosanjh didn't seem to be exactly on our side in the Section 13 hearings. Oh, and in other news, Levant has written a new book due to come out soon on the Oil Sands.

Harking back to my Zerbisias for Coulter post... The Zerb will no longer be writing her column at the Star having migrated to Features. Whether that is better, worse, or just equally ghastly I don't know. Jonathan Kay does take a moment to note, and indeed almost lament the fall of the radical left columnist. Something he attributes at least in part to bloggers and their fact checking and satire fetishes. Why lament? What good is a conservative columnist unless the left is busy spouting their ideas? We'd have nothing to make money laughing at anymore. (P.S. That's why conservatives are into freedom of speech. P.P.S. I laugh at liberals, can I get some of the money too?)

Ignatieff, in a frenzy of equal opportunity sanctions, is coping with being put on (political) suicide watch by trying to regulate everyone else's guns too. For the record, in case any liberals are poking around, the previous sentence is called satire, kinda. However Ignatieff is busy trying to save the gun registry by any means possible. How fun. I shall enjoy watching the Liberals lose every rural and semi-rural seat they still have left (Do they have any left?). I like this article on the subject. For the record, I live in a riding which was Liberal for 60 years. Until the gun registry came along and it is now one of the safest Conservative seats in the province.

Speaking of guns and suicide watches. It appears that Allan Rock, who was originally responsible for the gun registry, authorized Houle's letter to Ann Coulter. Some people never learn.

Speaking of Conservatives and my riding and specifically Cheryl Gallant MP who is NOT winning any brownie points on my desk. I received a letter from her today which says, in full.

Dear Rebecca,
Thank you for your phone call of March 29 in which you inquired about Section 13 of the human rights code.
Together with my colleagues in the Conservative government we believe that freedom of expression is a basic tenant of our law, and within appropriate limits, must be respected.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Tribunal are independent agencies that administer the CHRA without interference from the government.
Cheryl Gallant
If she really didn't want to say anything she could easily have saved herself the bother of writing it out. Perhaps it is not possible for Conservatives to be more emphatic (like saying anything that Francois Houle wouldn't applaud) right now, but then again, when 99.9% of the media is being very forthright about how much they like freedom of speech and how much they don't like the fact that it is being eroded how much more encouragement do you need? Which part of "Parliament can abolish Section 13" is difficult for these people? Will saying, "You are making it very hard for me to want to vote for you" make it easier for them to understand? Coward.

Very interesting Westminister 2010 Document. Over 35,000 signatures in 20 days.

We the undersigned are Christians who believe that protecting human life, protecting marriage, and protecting freedom of conscience are foundational for creating and maintaining strong families, caring communities and a just society.

In signing the Westminster 2010 Declaration of Christian Conscience we commit ourselves to worship, honour and obey God, to exercise social responsibility in working for the common good and to be subject to all governing authorities and obey them except when they require us to act unjustly.

We call upon all parliamentary candidates to pledge that they will ‘respect, uphold and protect the right of Christians to hold and express Christian beliefs and act according to Christian conscience’.

The Calgary Herald makes the good point, relevant to my earlier post, that the U of C is not quite a private institution since taxpayers foot the majority of the bill. Whether that forces them to support freedom of speech I don't know. But threatening to cut funding as long as they fail to fulfill their mandate could be quite appropriate. Another, if unlikely, tactic to consider.

For your viewing pleasure

Interesting post by SoCon or Bust on 10 wedges to bring down abortion. He may be right, banning sex selection abortion, stopping government subsidies, and bringing in informed consent laws would probably be more palatable than banning abortion outright. We shall see.

Monday, April 12, 2010

I'm Voting Never

“There will always be voices who claim we’re not ready, we’re not there yet, the time to end discrimination is next year, or next session. But victims of discrimination should not have to wait.” link

Yes.... well.... personally I was going to vote NEVER on this one. You see, call me outdated, puritanical, and a raving bigot, but I have this thing about seeing men in the ladies washroom. I don't take to the idea so well.

Although I have to admit that's really nothing to the way I feel about guys in the girls' locker room.

And what about the guy who keeps doing really well... on the female sports team?

Some people, read Maine Human Rights Commission, are willing to allow transgender people to use whatever gender "stuff" they "need". The case rose out of a transgender twelve year old who was asked to use a single stall bathroom rather than using the girls' bathroom. (And anyway, a transgender 12 year old? Do his parents have serious problems or what? How does he even know the word?) Sounds like reasonable accommodation to me. Not to some people evidently.

The funny part of the case is the other kid, who was given permission by his Grandfather to use the girls' bathroom as long as the other boy/girl did. The Maine HRC had no sympathy for him, he was appropriately punished because he was heterosexual.

That said, according to our dear MHRC you don't need any documentation to declare yourself transgender.

I predict a wave of fifteen year old boys suddenly becoming transgender. Who knew it could have so many perks?

Sunday, April 11, 2010

U of C, Free Speech I Think Not

In truth, the University of Calgary would have been more than human if it hadn't taken full advantage of the University of Ottawa's misfortune re Ann Coulter to parade around as the cowboy riding out of the sunset, sweeping up to the forlorn damsel in distress, and saying "Need any help honey?". Opportunities for the West to avoid a great deal of bad press, get some good press, and make a fool out of Ontario all at the same time are too rare to be squandered lightly.

Alan Harrison, Provost of U of C, avoided the fate of Francois Houle (Has he come out of hiding yet by the way, anyone know? Anyone?) by issuing a statement of his own. “If we try to suppress people’s views simply because we don’t agree with them we’re doing two things, we’re acting contrary to what the university stands for, and also frankly, we’re providing increased publicity for the person who’s spreading those views. That’s not our purpose. Our purpose is to give her the same respect that everybody else deserves.”

Beautifully put. All any Ann Coulter supporter, or just interested person, could want. Quite true too, the increased publicity bit anyway.

But now dark rumours are beginning to swirl around the U of C campus. Was it all a bit of grandstanding? Are they really, deep down, worse censors than even U of O? Have they, gasp, fallen into the mysterious and deadly web of Ontario intolerance and liberalism? Are they a bunch of pious self-righteous hypocrites?

"On Thursday, Campus Pro-life, the University of Calgary’s pro-life club, set up a pro-life display on campus - the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP).

Last year, the university charged the pro-life students with trespassing for erecting the same display, which has been displayed on campus peacefully and without incident twice per year since 2006. The crown prosecutors withdrew the charges prior to trial, however.

But in an e-mail sent to the students' lawyer Thursday, the university against stated that it “requires that Campus Pro-Life turn the Genocide Awareness Project signs inward so that the University community does not have to view them," and threatened the students with sanctions for non-academic misconduct.

The pro-life students say that at Thursday’s event campus security initially appeared as if they would not intervene, simply standing on site as the group's exhibit went ahead without incident. However, in mid-afternoon that changed when U of C security went around the exhibit handing out notices to pro-life students, indicating that if they refused to turn their signs inwards, they could be subject to a fine up to $2,000 ($5,000 for further trespass), arrest, civil action, or non-academic misconduct" LifeSiteNews

The University of Calgary says,
This is not an issue about Freedom of Speech; the paramount issues for the University are the needs to uphold its legal right to manage activities on campus, and to ensure the safety and security for the thousands of students, staff, faculty and community members on campus each day.
(The highly annoying and disingenuous "safety and security" bit aside) Perhaps so, the university does have a right to manage what appears on its private property. I moderate comments on my blog after all, post something using half a dozen swear words and I can promise you it will never see the light of day. However regardless of whether they have a legal right to manage what is shown on their property and how it is shown, it doesn't manifest a great willingness to, how should I put it, tolerate other points of view because “If we try to suppress people’s views simply because we don’t agree with them we’re doing two things,we’re acting contrary to what the university stands for, and also frankly, we’re providing increased publicity for the person who’s spreading those views. That’s not our purpose. Our purpose is to give (them) the same respect that everybody else deserves.”

So out of curiosity, has the university ever allowed graphic anti-war protests on campus? Have they ever allowed graphic pictures of torture or other genocides? Did those people deserve respect? What is their policy on graphic or disturbing images on campus? If they have a blanket ban on any image that anyone might find offensive then fine. That is the rule they have put in place to preserve public decency and to keep everything neutral, bland, and safe. You may disagree with that policy, and that is something the media, students, parents, public, and donors can discuss.

But if they do allow other potentially disturbing images on campus but are trying to get rid of pro-life images then we have a problem. Not a legal problem, they have the right to regulate their own campus, but a cultural and moral one. And they should get the same shaming that U of O got. Double, because they are lying hypocrites. Triple, come to think of it, because they were self-righteous lying hypocrites.

This is a secular university, they pride themselves on allowing all sides. Student protests are, as far as I can tell, part of what being at university is about. Let the protesters protest Ann Coulter, I support their right to do so. Let them have Israeli Apartheid Week as long as they don't break the law. I support their right to disagree about whether Israel is a good guy or a bad guy. And let the pro-life people present their point of view. If the pro-aborts want to put up a display next door showing pictures of dead abortion doctors or women who died in childbirth, go ahead. I won't like it, but I don't have to. Let's not censor one side of the debate.

Personally, to forestall any accusations that we are just as big hypocrites because we supported Macleans defiance of Elmassry, who wanted them to publish the other side, I would support Elmassry's legal right to campaign against Macleans, try to sway public opinion so that Macleans would be forced by subscribers to publish the counter-view, and protest all they liked about the issue. They shouldn't have gone to the government to solve their problem and honestly unless there is some law I don't know about I don't think these students should try to get the government to force U of C to keep the signs up either.

But after all, what are we talking about? Disturbing images of lynching and the holocaust? Welcome to an eighth grade history textbook. Disturbing images of violence and genocide around the world? Front page on the coffee table newspaper. Disturbing images of abortion? BANNED, BANNED, DOUBLE BANNED YOU NASTIES.

Ann Coulter got respect (sort of) but she isn't a pro-life student. She has money, lawyers, and a media just waiting to lap up any further news stories about out of control students. As they say, you have to be famous like Levant, Steyn, or Coulter to beat the censorship rap.

It's just not cricket.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Coulter for Zerbisias

If I was a little less of a free speech advocate than I am, I might be willing to strike a deal with the liberals. You get to kick Ann Coulter out, and we get to kick Antonia Zerbisias out. Deal? Sounds fair to me, morality aside which good leftists don't believe in anyway, right?

Oh, for the record, millions of women are in danger of dying because Conservatives won't fund abortions in third world countries. However we are not to worry because "But then, what's a woman's life?".

The conditions under which leftists would oppose abortion...

And incidentally...

H/T Big Blue Wave

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

If You Can't Get Behind Our Troops, Get in Front of Them

Well, personally I kind of like the line. Rather pithy and thought provoking if you ask me, which no one does.

I also rather like the idea of providing soldier's orphans with scholarships. Sure it would be nice if we had a national merit based scholarship but failing that can anyone really object to giving extra help to kids who have lost a parent serving their country.

I mean really, would even the Grinch do that?

Here is the list of the Professors who do oppose it. Partly, so they say, because there is nothing heroic about our war in Afghanistan and we shouldn't be glorifying militarism.

They also don't think people should be sending them "threats" like, if you can't get behind our troops, get in front of them.

Well it isn't a threat, not from me anyway. It is just something worth thinking about. And by the way, it isn't the soldiers' fault that we are in a war you don't like. Take it up with the politicians. And if you don't like war that much surely you should be the first to advocate compassion for the victims of war, starting with our soldiers.

Nice little editorial from the Globe and Mail.

Protest letter from one of the signers.

And as SDA says, "Since you feel that strongly about it, RESIGN" Or don't you feel that strongly?;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Do please be civil. No threats, alright? Try to use logic instead, I know it doesn't work for lefties, but feel free to add your letters in the comments here and we can enjoy them.