Liars Figure

I do not like to attack someone who is obviously a fellow conservative, but the truth is not served by covering up well, I might not be able to call it lies, but it isn't exactly straight forward either. Let's just be really charitable and call it sloppy writing. 
Take this chart and explanation here.

As tens of thousands of U.S. factories get shut down and as millions of our jobs get shipped overseas, the number of unemployed Americans continues to go up and up and up 

As you can see from the chart below, there has been a long-term trend of increasing unemployment in the United States.  In fact, there are about 3 and a half times as many unemployed workers in the United States today as there were when 1970 began.  These jobs losses are going to continue as long as we allow our corporations to pay slave labor wages to workers on the other side of the globe.  All of the major trends in global trade are very bad for the U.S. middle class.  For example, the U.S. trade deficit with China for 2010 was 27 times larger than it was back in 1990.  How long will our politicians stand by as our nation bleeds jobs? (Source)

What is missing from this chart? Anyone who says, "The numbers aren't controlled for population increases and thus aren't worth a plugged nickle" hits the bell and gets their choice of coconut or honey doughnut.

Obviously we have no interest in knowing whether the absolute number of unemployed people is increasing, that number can't prove anything whatsoever. What we would like to know is this, has the unemployment RATE consistently increased since 1970 as a result of overseas outsourcing?

Answer: No.

Here is the appropriate chart, compiled by yours truly, using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Funny enough, until 2009-10, the unemployment rate in the United States seems to have been decreasing, not increasing since the mid 1970s. Just to confirm that, average unemployment rate per decade.

1950s: 4.51%
1960s: 4.78%
1970s: 6.21%
1980s: 7.27%
1990s: 5.75%
2000-2008: 4.61%

What we seem to see here is not a steadily increasing unemployment rate, but rather an unemployment level that increased to a peak in 1982 and has been declining, more or less steadily, ever since to lower levels than even in the 60s (pre-recession).

Is that a result of overseas outsourcing? Well one way to test that would be to look at imports as a percentage of GDP. That will tell us what percentage of goods and services that Americans consume were imported, a measure that will likely tell us something relevant about American companies moving overseas.

Doesn't really look like it declines after the 80s, in fact it seems to be pretty steep in the 2000s, while unemployment was very low.

So, combine a misleading graph with a not particularly defensible explanation...

Lesson for the day: Never believe a graph you can't prove yourself from the raw data.

Supreme Court Speech Decision

 In one of the more under commented on stories of the week:

The Supreme Court of Canada has come down 6-1 on the side of freedom of speech, and not just freedom in a disputable case, but freedom in quite an extreme case. Andre Arthur, a radio host, delivered a rant about Arab and Haitian cab drivers, saying that,

[translation]  Why is it that there are so many incompetent people and that the language of work is Creole or Arabic in a city that’s French and English?  . . .  I’m not very good at speaking “nigger”. . . .  [T]axis have really become the Third World of public transportation in Montreal. . . .  [M]y suspicion is that the exams, well, they can be bought.  You can’t have such incompetent people driving taxis, people who know so little about the city, and think that they took actual exams. . . .  Taxi drivers in Montreal are really arrogant, especially the Arabs.  They’re often rude, you can’t be sure at all that they’re competent and their cars don’t look well maintained.

The Court ruled that while the speech was racist, it was impossible to prove that it had caused personal harm to all the members of the class action lawsuit.

Apparently one of the things that Courts look for when deciding group defamation suits is the size of the group and how homogenous the group is. The smaller and more homogenous the group, the more likely a group libel action to succeed. For example, remarks about "women" or "lawyers" (or "Muslims" or "homosexuals" presumably) in general cannot constitute defamation, because the group is too large and diverse for the remarks to personally affect every member of the group.

The Court also decided that context was important (HRCs take note) and that Andre Arthur's reputation as an over the top "shock jock" meant that an "ordinary person" would be very unlikely to take the remarks as literal reputable truth (Note to self, cultivating reputation as controversial can help in defamation suits. Interesting.)

In general the Court decided that it was obvious the remarks were over the top, that no "ordinary person" would assume that they applied to each and every Arab and Haitian taxi driver in Montreal, and therefore it could not be said to personally discredit and damage every Arab and Haitian taxi driver in Montreal.

In other words, the Court soundly rejected the idea of any sort of corporate damage or group defamation. Defamation law only protects individuals, not groups.

Since the right to the protection of reputation, which is the basis for an action in defamation, is an individual right that is intrinsically attached to the person, only those who have suffered personal injury become entitled to compensation.  The requirement of proof of a personal injury contributes to maintaining the balance between freedom of expression and the right to the protection of reputation, and also applies where the defamatory comments are made about a group.  However, an individual will not be entitled to compensation solely because he or she is a member of a group about which offensive comments have been made.  The member or members of the group who bring an action must have sustained personal injury.(Bolds mine)

Whether the Supreme Court will extend this idea that rights belong to individuals, not groups, to human rights complaints I do not know. However I think it is clear from this ruling that the Supreme Court is not necessarily an enemy of freedom of speech, even in shocking cases, and thus the cases like Whatcott's that are heading towards the Supreme Court have, in my opinion, considerably better than a 50:50 chance of winning. 

Other interesting comments coming out of the ruling:

Freedom of expression is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 2(b), and the Charter of human rights and freedoms, R.S.Q., c. C‑12, s. 3 (“Quebec Charter”).  It is one of the pillars of modern democracy.  It allows individuals to become emancipated, creative and informed, it encourages the circulation of new ideas, it allows for criticism of government action and it favours the emergence of truth... Freedom of expression is essential in ensuring that social, economic and political decisions reflect the aspirations of the members of society.  It is broad in scope and protects well‑prepared speech and wrath‑provoking comments alike...  However, it is not absolute and can be limited by other rights in a democratic society, including the right to protection of reputation.

Rather well put if you ask me. Also, contrary to what might seem to be the case, the Supreme Court appears to view defamation law as evolving, towards a more full protection of freedom of speech.

What was an acceptable limit on freedom of expression in the 19th century may no longer be acceptable today.  Indeed, particularly in recent decades, the law of defamation has evolved to provide more adequate protection for freedom of expression on matters of public interest. 

Indeed.

All quotes from CanLII

Iranium 2

So after the first shut down (see original story here) Iranium went on last night under the watchful eye of 17 security officers and some heavy duty police hanging around very conspicuously. It was all very boring, no protest, no teargas... but in compensation we did get to see a very interesting film. I think there were some youngsters their with disruptive intentions, they were sitting in front of me and were noticeably not applauding at the appropriate intervals. One of them was also holding a big mike on her lap. However in the end, whether due to the fact that the police were too intimidating or the movie too convicting, or both, there were no disruptions.

The crowd in general were very much on the side of the Free Thinking Film Festival, applauding at every available opportunity during the speech. There were several government officials there, MPs, Ministers, Senators. Some of them, including Heritage Minister James Moore, got up to speak (He got a standing ovation before he even said anything).

Deborah Gyapong has some pictures up of the event.

For those who missed it, I believe you can watch it free online for a limited time here. 

I got a recording of the Clare Lopez speech and Q and A which will go up just as soon as Blogger decides to cooperate with the upload.

Ways to Describe a HRT Adjudicator's Words and Actions

"Patently unreasonable", "illogical", "unsupportable in law and fact", "legal errors", behaved "inexplicably", a "breach of principles of procedural fairness and natural justice", "it is simply not possible to logically follow the pathway taken by the adjudicator", "unsupported by factual findings","unfair", "failed to apply... legal principles", decision "fatally flawed", makes apparently contradictory findings, the decision "cannot be said to be rational or logical".

Who said all of that?

A) Ezra Levant

B) Mark Steyn

C) The Ontario Superior Court of Justice

The answer is, C, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in a review of a HRTO decision.

Who was this patently unreasonable ruling against?  Maxcine Telfer, a Toronto immigrant businesswoman who runs an organization devoted to helping immigrant women settle in Canada.

Result of original patently unreasonable ruling? A $36,000 fine and an attempt to seize Ms. Telfer's house in payment that was only foiled by the Superior Court's ruling. 

Why? In the course of her business operations she hired Seema Saadi a legally-blind, Bengali-Canadian, Muslim social worker.  But, less than six weeks after Ms. Saadi started work Audmax, Telfer's organization, let Ms. Saadi go for cause. She sued, and the HRTO found that Ms Saadi had been discriminated against on the grounds of ancestry, ethnic origin, creed, and sex largely on the grounds of their microwave and dress codes.

You lose a house for enforcing rules about what you can put in a microwave? Apparently that is what the HRT now considers reasonable.

What happened?

Audmax had a strict environmental sensitivity that restricted the use of scented products or the heating of strong smelling food in the microwave. By even the admission of the Tribunal this microwave policy was strictly enforced on everyone, to the point that other people had just stopped using the microwave rather than risk running afoul of it. Apparently however, because Ms. Telfer couldn't provide a list of acceptable ingredients this "ambiguity leads to arbitrariness and the conditions for discriminatory enforcement." and therefore discipline resulting from violating the code was discrimination on the grounds of ancestry and ethnic origin although Ms. Saadi was not singled out for adverse treatment in this way and others were adversely affected by the rule as well. Indeed as the Superior Court pointed out, "It would appear from that factual conclusion (that she continued to use the microwave where others didn't) that the policy had less impact on Ms. Saadi than on others." Also the food was apparently not even hers, which shoots down the only remaining argument, that reheating strong-smelling food was an integral part of her ethnic identity. " I do not see how the ethnicity and ancestral rights of a Bengali-Canadian Muslim are adversely affected by being prevented from reheating somebody else’s Tunisian food."(Superior Court)

All in all the Superior Court said it best, " In short, the reasons do not disclose a rational basis for the conclusion that there was discrimination against Ms. Saadi in respect of the microwave policy. "

Dress code then? Was this a Hooters masquerading as a social work agency? 

Apparently Ms. Saadi always dressed in a "religiously appropriate" manner, and this never caused a problem indeed "Ms. Telfer often complimented the applicant on her fashion style." according to the HRT. However one day she came in wearing an outfit which, from the sandals and anklet, to the short skirt and leggings, to the weird hijab (unlike the traditional one she usually wore) Ms. Telfer considered unprofessional. This was apparently also discrimination, as a woman has the right to wear any form of headdress she wants if her religion mandates that she wears a headdress. In other words, Muslim women have the inalienable human right to show up at the office in a baseball cap or Mickey Mouse ears, and win tens of thousands of dollars if anyone suggests that is unprofessional. Gotcha. 

The Superior Court pointed this out in vivid language.

 "In my view, the adjudicator proceeded on an illogical, and legally incorrect, course of reasoning.  First, he held that what Ms. Saadi was wearing on the day in question was consistent with her religious requirements.  Second, he held that what Ms. Saadi was wearing was, at least according to the employer, inconsistent with the dress code.  He therefore concluded that the dress code violated Ms. Saadi’s religious rights.  The logical step that the adjudicator missed was a consideration of whether it was possible for Ms. Saadi to comply with the dress code without compromising her religious requirements.  There was nothing about Ms. Saadi’s religion that required her to wear the particular form of hijab she was wearing on the day in question.  If it was possible for her to wear a religiously acceptable form of hijab that was fully consistent with the dress code (as indeed she had done every day for six weeks), her religious rights were not affected.  All that was affected was her sense of style, which apparently was in conflict with that of her employer.....

If she chose, for example, to wear a battered old sweatshirt and baggy flannelette pants, the requirements of her religion would likely be met, but surely her employer could legitimately complain that this was not suitable attire for a professional office environment.

[88]           The adjudicator in this case made an irrational decision by concluding that discrimination had been established any time an item of clothing was questioned and that clothing complied with the requirements of the complainant’s religion.  He ought to have considered whether the dress code, or the employer’s enforcement or interpretation of it, conflicted with what the employee was required to wear as part of her religion."

Wow, did you see that wizzing by the left hand window? Logic! Savor the moment kids, you may not see that again for a long time.

The Superior Court has also determined that it is not de facto discrimination if a man is in the room during a discussion of  acceptable female business attire. Good to know.

There were other matters in the ruling but these were the primary ones.

One of the most grotesque errors on the part of the HRT was drawing negative inferences from the absence of a key witness, and thus working on the assumption that there was no reason to believe the accusations against Ms. Saadi which led to her termination. What the HRT left out of their ruling but the Superior Court caught and harped on, was that the key witness was going to testify until he was called away by a family emergency, tried to submit his testimony via sealed envelope which the tribunal refused to even open, and that Ms. Telfer, being unrepresented, was too ignorant of her rights to request an adjournment until he could testify. The Superior Court considered all of this horrifyingly unfair, especially as the Tribunal arguably had a duty to inform Ms. Telfer that she had the right to adjourn, and the fact that they decided that Ms. Telfer was lying about Ms. Saadi because she failed to produce testimony that Ms. Telfer had tried to produce but the Tribunal had disallowed just compounded the travesty of the entire ruling.

The National Post and The Star had a lot to say about the fact that Ms. Saadi had her lawyers paid for by the government, while Ms. Telfer was unrepresented because she couldn't afford a lawyer. That the deck was stacked against Ms. Telfer by not letting her key witness testify. And that the government is now paying Ms. Saadi's fine while Ms. Telfer would have lost her house to pay hers.

As Ms. Saadi said, presumably after the Superior Court overturn, "I am a little bit surprised and a little bit confused about how the justice system works,”.

Aren't we all.

Although I think she and I would be referring to different aspects of the "justice" system.

And yes Faisal Bhabha, I am talking about you, and all your HRTO buddies.

As I always say, when The Star and The Post agree that the Human Rights system is out of control, it must be really, really, out of control.

The Star

The Post

The Superior Court of Justice

The HRTO ruling

Good News in Egypt

As with most current events blogs it seems that bad news frequently predominates over good news. However it is nice, every once in awhile, to be able to produce a heartwarming story of unity and solidarity in the midst of trouble, especially when it transcends frequently divisive lines.

Egyptian Muslims turned up for the Coptic Christmas Eve services, surrounding the churches as "human shields" to protect them from attack as the mass was celebrated.

From the well-known to the unknown, Muslims had offered their bodies as “human shields” for last night’s mass, making a pledge to collectively fight the threat of Islamic militants and towards an Egypt free from sectarian strife.... “This is not about us and them,” said Dalia Mustafa, a student who attended mass at Virgin Mary Church on Maraashly Street. “We are one. This was an attack on Egypt as a whole, and I am standing with the Copts because the only way things will change in this country is if we come together.” In the days following the brutal attack on Saints Church in Alexandria, which left 21 dead on New Year’ eve, solidarity between Muslims and Copts has seen an unprecedented peak. (Link)

Our thanks to the brave Muslims defended the right of Copts to worship peacefully in their nation. Let's keep this up, together.

I Survived Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade - 38 Years

For a Future without abortion.

And because it deserves to be resurrected at least once a year,

The Street of the Dead Fetuses

Iranium

I'm sure most of my Canadian readers are by now well aware of the Iranium shut down, but for those Canadians who might have recently come out of a coma and my international readers I will repeat a few of the more important points.

The Free Thinking Film Society was due to show the film Iranium, about Iran and its nuclear ambitions, with a Clare Lopez speech at the National Library and Archives, their usual venue of choice. Following a formal complaint from the Iranian embassy (cue sputtering indignation from anyone to the right of, say, the Canadian Charger staff) and complaints and threats from members of the public (or perhaps rather "public") the Archives canceled the screening.

Heritage Minister Moore intervened, and the Archives agreed to reinstate the screening, only to cancel it again at the last minute due to more threats.

This made front page news on just about every newspapers in Canada, commentators wanting to know since when the Iranians dictated Canadian culture events, etc. Finally the Heritage Minister intervened again and ordered the Archives to honor their obligation to show the film at a later date, now Feb 6th.

So, to all those in the area, or not in the area, the National Library and Archives is the place to be on Feb 6th to see Iranium and hear Clare Lopez (who is flying in again).

Put your money where your mouth is. Tickets available online. http://www.freethinkingfilmfest.ca/

Arizona Shooting

Our condolences to Gabrielle Giffords, the victims, and families of the victims, of the Arizona shooting.

Happy New Year!

To start this post off with the obvious, Happy New Year! Hopefully you all had as good a time I did, fantastic food, great friends, and Pirates of Penzance, on top of some very nice exam results (Perfect score on modern middle east, wonder why) which are my excuse for not blogging as much as might have otherwise been advised. My excuse for the next two weeks of slack posting are precalculus, statistic, and calculus. Did I mention that I haven't really started studying for statistics or calculus yet and I am supposed to know them before I start econometrics on the 18th? You can forgo the comments questioning my mental sanity, I've questioned it enough myself recently.

On that subject, the BC NDP are in a bit of a fix because their new leader must be a woman due to quota rules, and all their candidates are men. At this point I would usually talk about the negative social effects of ruling out great candidates due to the rather irrelevant fact that they are men, but I won't. It might, actually, cause me to rethink my stance on gender quotas. Because honestly a bad leader for the NDP doesn't really make my list of negative social outcomes. What fate more just then to fall upon the rocks of their own bigotry?

The first American Baby Boomer has turned 65. Welcome to the new world. Hope you like it. This seems to me like the perfect moment to resurrect one of my older posts (that had people questioning my emotional stability, caused a local scandal, and resulted in people wishing violence against me. So I knew it was pretty good.)

To continue the first half of my post some days later.

My Mother has been "encouraging" me to put up a Paypal donation button on my blog. I resist on the grounds that I do not blog often enough or well enough to justify anyone paying me. But on the slight off chance that I am wrong and I do have devoted fans who would love to support me, you can check out this little thingamajig.  It is a reminder of an important, if too often overlooked, period of history, sometimes called a civil war, but having a rather one-sided outcome (let's just put it this way, their numbers today are still half what they were in the 16th century). The Huguenots, my ancestors among them, were discriminated against, forcibly converted, massacred (70,000 in the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre), driven into exile. But those fortunate ones who managed to escape France alive were immensely influential in the spread and foundation of much of Protestant Christianity (John Calvin being perhaps the most famous example). One beautiful symbol, immensely rich in meaning, that they left us is the Huguenot Cross (aka the Protestant Cross)

The cross as the universal symbol  of Christianity.
The base is a Maltese cross, because we are soldiers of Christ.
It is also a lily, symbol of purity and of France.
The four petals/arms symbolize the four gospels.
The eight points symbolize the beatitudes.
The hearts are to symbolize that our hearts are to be centered on Christ, and they are connected to John Calvin's seal.
The fleur-de-lis represent France, again.
The 12 petals of the four fleur-de-lis represent the 12 apostles.
The ring of points represents Christ's crown of thorns.
The dove represents the Holy Spirit. In times of persecution it was replaced by a dove, symbolizing tears.
(I know, minus several hundred points for tact, alienate all my Catholic readers and still hope to build my readership. But I do love the Huguenot story, and the Huguenot cross, and it deserves to be told. After all, bloggers aren't into political correctness right?

CBC and Kathryn Joyce may believe that "The Demographic Winter" is a piece of racist, anti-women, Christian, etc (you know the list) propaganda, but the million dollar question is this, will their ideological purity preserve them if Canada eventually goes Europe and starts seizing private retirement savings in order to boost public pension funds? H/T RuralRite

And a little late, but none the worse for that. The New York, oops sorry The New Jerusalem Times has a cover story on the birth of Jesus. Best headlines in my opinion. "Planned Parenthood's Success Story: Herod's administration implements ultra-late-term post birth (up to two years or 8th trimester) abortion regimen" and "Who Killed the Dead Sea? Large Roman-made chariots most commonly blamed for the disaster".

Favourite Pictures 2010

I thought this picture was a dead winner for best political picture of 2010

Until I saw some of the other pictures from the Ukrainian Parliament smoke bomb/egg fight. The contest suddenly became too close to call.

Note flying egg.

The moment when you realize that Canadian politics really is too tame, journalistic howling about political incivility aside.

So what are the bets on Harper v. Ignatieff scrum fight?

Assange Leak Round 2

For the record, I think it is not only extremely funny but altogether just that Julian Assange has been the victim of a leak of confidential police reports.

And the irony of his indignation is just perfect.

Leftists never do get it do they?

Motivation and Marriage

My article, first published on MercatorNet Family Edge Blog.

For most people large, tight families who do just about everything en masse is the stuff of legend, or reality TV shows. But as the oldest of ten children I live with it every day, this article for example was interrupted to rescue a precious stuffed bunny from the new puppy, and mediate who got to wear the princess dress.


So you can imagine the results when two such families, with eight and ten children respectively, are brought together by a courtship and later engagement. Actually, unless you were brought up in a similar family you probably can’t. Suffice to say that it includes insane amounts of food, folk dancing, practical jokes involving balloons, chicken slaughtering (honest!), and a home-grown film company to make a documentary of the whole relationship. But the slaughter of innocent chickens has not been the only result of this engagement.

 For my brother (19) it has also meant that adolescence, and an era of low responsibility, is officially over. While a little while ago he could afford to hesitate about committing to a particular career, now getting, and keeping, a stable, good paying job as a tradesman’s apprentice has suddenly become of vital importance. After all, if he looses his job he is going to have a very hard time convincing his fiancee’s parents that a 2011 wedding is a good idea. A reliable car has become more than a luxury, and he suddenly has no interest in spending money on computers or other non essentials. Marriage has been a great motivator.

I know my brother isn’t alone among young people when it comes to falling in love, but while it has driven him to grow up, complete milestones in education and employment, and save money, for many people the pressures that created those achievements are lacking. Last week the Institute for Marriage and Family Canada released a report on the causes of delayed adulthood. One of those, they suggest, may be co-habitation.

It would be very simplistic to suggest that co-habitation is the only reason for delayed adulthood, and in fact it may be more of a symptom than a cause. But it does rate some thoughtful consideration. If few people were willing to live together before marriage, we could reasonably expect marriage rates to climb dramatically, most people aren’t willing to wait forever for intimate companionship. And with an increase in marriage rates, young adults would be highly motivated to “get going” with their lives. While Mom and Dad may be willing to subsidize your apartment while you are going to college, with or without a clear notion of who your roommate is, they are probably less likely to do so once you get married.

Without a doubt there are myriad reasons for the lengthened period between adolescence and independent adulthood that we are seeing today, but cohabitation cannot be helping. When my brother gets married next year he will have to assume all the responsibilities of an adult, and he has risen to that challenge. But what if that challenge didn’t exist? We have been asking, “Why won’t they grow up?” Maybe we should be asking, “Why should they grow up?”

Are you obsessive and troubled?

Though so. 


I mean, I really hate to pick on Heather Mallick (Actually, I don't. So what I lied, sue me) but sometimes (always) she deserves it.

Abortion rights across Canada are like computer-generated word clouds, or to use a more old-fashioned analogy, ordinary sky clouds. Abortion availability is good and prominent in bigger cities in bigger provinces, wispy in small towns and the more backward provinces like New Brunswick. And in P.E.I., as always, it’s a heartless and empty sky.

Stop the presses. You mean that abortion is like everything else in Canada, more readily available in urban centres than in small towns? Who woulda thunk?

You can talk Anne of Green Gables all you like but imagine this country containing a province that treats its women the way the Irelands do. You must gather cash in your apron from kind friends and leave the island for the 10-minute procedure that’s easy to get in Toronto but would send you straight to hell in Potato Island, you filthy slut. So no change there then.

Heather Mallick, whatever her innumerable faults, has a gift for evocative language. Or at least would-be evocative language that comes across as rather humorously manipulative unless you happen to agree with her anyway. The kind motherly (oops) woman, bravely defying the judgementalism of her backwards and faintly sinister community, tearfully gathering money in her apron, deposited there by kind friends who look like Judy Dench in a period film. Oh, it tugs at the heart strings. And yes I can easily imagine living in a country like Ireland. Apparently I do anyway, but I will consider Ireland as a backup destination if something ever gets into the water supply and a certain person becomes Prime Minister.

New Brunswick is continuing its torment of Dr. Henry Morgentaler, the bravest man in Canada, by dragging its heels on his lawsuit that would make the province actually obey health-care laws. Abortion is legal and covered under medicare, therefore free. But since timely abortions are extraordinarily difficult to get in the only two provincial hospitals that do them, women have to go to clinics where they pay upfront.

Well I'll be dipped in butter and rolled in breadcrumbs, the bravest man in Canada is he? And I never even knew it. Next they'll be telling us all the marijuana protesters are the bravest men (Ed: people Marmalade, no sexist language) in Canada too, after all they risk going to jail for their deeply held beliefs, and they aren't even risking having to make an acceptance speech when they get an honorary doctorate! One swoons at such manly courage. (and maybe Captain Kirk can step aside long enough for Morgentaler to become the next GG write in)

The province is clearly waiting for the good doctor, who is 87 and not in good health, to die. In his boyhood, my dear friend Henry also distressed people by not dying. They happened to be Nazi soldiers in Auschwitz, and no, I am not making a link. I am, however, pointing out an irony.

No we wouldn't be making that link now would we? We would just be making that link and then saying we didn't make that link from which people can draw their own links to match the linkage of their hearts to the gates of heaven or hell (because we all know that only pro-choice people get to choose heaven). Actually speaking of irony, the pro-lifers have a great deal to say on the irony of a holocaust survivor leading the charge to kill babies who are "unwanted", "imperfect", and "nonpersons". Did I mean to make that link? You judge for yourselves (for the more obtuse, the answer is yes).

There are now three women in the Conservative New Brunswick cabinet. One would hope they’d extend a generous hand to their youthful rural sisters and push for abortion care in the province. Thinking of you, Attorney General and Minister of Justice Marie-Claude Blais!

The SisterhoodTM! (Mutually exclusive with the deviant category defined as pro-life individuals of the gender "female")

Calgary has seen more anti-choice clamour this year, although the protesters at the University of Calgary appear to be the same as those who protest at other universities too, reports the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada. This rather dilutes the local effect. Calgary is a sophisticated city. I won’t compare its new mayor to ours, as it hurts too much.

Oh shoot. I had an open mind on the subject of Naheed Nenshi (alright I know nothing about him whatsoever, but I was prepared to approve if the evidence supported such an endorsement) but now I am afraid I must irrevocably turn my back on any thoughts of considering the man anything but a Calgary tragedy. Unless of course Mallick really only supports him because she thinks a Muslim mayor in Calgary just sticks it in the eye of Alberta (Disregarding the fact that they voted for him) and thus her support is purely racially and religiously based and has nothing to do with policy. Hm, could be. Maybe I better continue to keep an open mind on the subject of Mayor Nenshi.
And wonder of wonders, pro-life students manage to simultaneously enroll in U of O, U of C, and several dozen other campuses across Canada. Where are they getting that money? Where is the CRA? Why aren't they auditing these miraculous students?

Another issue is Bill C-510 on “coerced abortion.” Priests for Life loves it, and is passionate in its desire for women to bear more children, even unwanted ones.

One assumes that, by definition, coerced abortions were not unwanted by the women. Who then? The men in their lives? Mallick thinks that if a man doesn't want a child he should be able to force a woman to abort it, and kill her if she refuses? Before she sues me I know she doesn't, but that interpretation aside I am at some loss to understand what exactly the above sentence meant, if anything.

As always, I see political debates in graphic terms, mainly because I translate debates on principle into the suffering they cause to actual humans. And I remain disgusted by the continuing efforts of anti-choicers to figuratively stick their fingers into the uteri of women, as though they have a right to set up shop there.

In which case I am sure she absolutely loves the fact that public displays containing images of aborted fetuses allow us to move the debate into the realm of graphic human suffering. After all, that is her chosen battle ground right? Right? 

They do not. A person’s body is their own fenced-off area and it is their choice what they do inside it.

Except put it in front of an abortion clinic.

And yet we have hard-right Canadian newspapers and magazines debating whether women should be allowed even to have caesarean births or to cut back on the number of embryos that survive implantation during IVF procedures. No, a woman shouldn’t have twins if she doesn’t wish to. No, she shouldn’t have to be an octomom if her IVF has been badly handled.

And, incidentally my dear Mallick, we have every single letter to the editor on the subject professing horror and disgust that anyone would murder a child's twin as a measure of convenience. Do you really enjoy living in that kind of Canada Mallick? Knowing that the person you say "hi" to every day shudders at the thought of killing a twin so that the remaining child can have more new clothes? Actually, I take that all back. As you have yourself admitted to not knowing anyone who is a serious Christian I assume you live in a fairly sheltered Canada and don't have to deal with that. My mistake.

Women will find it almost impossible to be self-supporting or have satisfying careers until they can direct their own reproduction. So childbirth must often be delayed till their 30s. As usual, Quebec is at the forefront, paying for IVF procedures but with the goal of a woman ending up with one healthy infant as opposed to six damaged ones (which is what happens in private clinics that charge enormous fees and roll the dice on infant health).

Because most women love to live through the pain of infertility and IVF because no one told them that glib statements about delaying childbirth have less than glib realities. I'm not forcing anyone not to use birth control. I just prefer that we don't kill children already in existence. I also, for the record, oppose mothers being able to kill their dependent children when they realize a year after cute Suzy was born that being a single Mom really puts a damper on education and career.

It will never end, this need for troubled obsessive people — the Harperites of Canada — to take ownership of others, to prod inside the female body — and into the stuff of our souls — for control. Should Stephen Harper win a majority in a possible spring election, every right women have won over the decades will drift into the ether, like clouds.

And here we are again, back at Harper and the conservatives. It's always the Harper, isn't it. I sure hope for Mallick's sake that liberals, or worse yet NDP, don't take over Canada. She'd be out of business overnight. Unless you count several years of victory cheers business. 
   But just savor this passage for a moment, to prod into the "stuff of our souls - for control" because we just know that under a Harper majority women would lose the right to vote (honest, that is what that says. Read it), and before you knew it every woman in Canada would have invested in a Julia Child pearl necklace and be scrubbing floors all day long for 50 cents an hour, if they were allowed to work at all. 


You almost have to feel sorry for someone who's entire security and assurance of freedom is nothing more than clouds, to be whisked away by malevolent men at the drop of a hat if a few seats tip the wrong way. Actually one really does feel sorry for her, it must be hard to live in such an angst ridden "reality". 


But I'm still going to laugh at her if she insists on parading her paranoia to the world of Star readers.

Heroine of human dignity: Mildred Fay Jefferson

So the new (or new to me) email feature of blogger works! Cool.  Anyway, my latest article on MercatorNet.
Heroine of human dignity: Mildred Fay Jefferson Source: mercatornet.com The first black woman to graduate from Harvard medical school used her position to defend the humanity of the unborn.
missmarprelate@gmail.com sent this using ShareThis.

Not ALL the British are Crazy

Just most of them.

However one sane judge still seems to know what the phrases "religious freedom" and "freedom of speech" mean. And that they actually apply to Christians too.

Talk about judicial thoughtcrime.

Maybe they should put up posters about that.

When Quoting Orwell Feels Like a Broken Record

Maybe I am the only person in the world who feels like this, but the huge flat-screen TVs at Wal-Mart checkouts really get on my nerves. It is bad enough that you are trapped in a line up like a hamster in a too small cage, but then they have to gratuitously rub it in by playing advertisements at you the entire time. Talk about adding insult to injury.

I just refuse to look.

Now, in the States not only will you be forced to endure perky advertisements featuring smiling families selling you trashy clothing or electronics, you will also be forced to watch ads (either perky or ominous, no news on that yet) encouraging you to report "suspicious behaviour" to the authorities in order to fight terrorism and crime. While the CNN story doesn't elaborate on what constitutes "suspicious behaviour", we may be able to gain some insight from British anti-terrorism campaigns.


British radio-ad transcript:

 Female Voice over:

How d’you tell the difference between someone just video-ing a crowded place and someone who’s checking it out for a terrorist attack?

How can you tell if someone’s buying unusual quantities of stuff for a good reason or if they’re planning to make a bomb?
What’s the difference between someone just hanging around and someone behaving suspiciously?
How can you tell if they’re a normal everyday person, or a terrorist?
Male voice over:
The answer is, you don’t have to.

 

 Or, my personal favourites, the parodies.

The HRCs - Crazy or Evil? Discuss.

I thought I was past being surprised, if not angered, by the Human Rights Commissions, I really did. I have seen them make stupid decisions, I have seen them make not so stupid decisions. I have seen them on innumerable occasions spill mind-numbing quantities of time, money, and ink on the process of dismissing vindictive and fabricated complaints. 

But they managed it. Oh yes, did they ever.

The Quebec HRC has just awarded a pilot by the name of Javed Latif $319,000 in compensation for racial discrimination by Bombardier when it refused to allow him to take pilot training at one of their facilities.

Why did Bombardier do this?

Because, as it turned out, the United States considered him to be a "threat to aviation or national security" and refused to allow him to train in the United States.

Bombardier, after thinking about this for probably less than thirty seconds, decided that if an individual was on the United States' no-fly list (or at least no-flying-training list, reports are a little vague) they probably didn't want to train him to fly jets.

Reasons 1-30 for this decision probably read, "Bad idea for really obvious reasons that no one should have to explain", number 31 was that if they trained him their training facility could be decertified as a training center for US pilots (For this reason alone I would expect them to win the HRC complaint on the grounds of undue hardship), and number 32 was, to quote Bombardier  “If there’s a threat, in good conscience… it ends there. It’s a business call. It’s a decision. It’s a safety call.” (As a potential flyer, thank you)

We won't even go into the consequences of if, God forbid, anything had happened and it turned out that Bombardier had ignored clear warnings of potential trouble, can anyone say  Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab? Methinks $300,000 is suddenly starting to look very small indeed.

But far worse and more sinister than the $300,000, which is probably Bombardier's annual paper clip budget, is the other order the Quebec HRC handed down. They have ordered Bombardier to  “stop applying or considering the standards or decisions of American authorities in terms of ‘national security’”.

Read that again, then continue.

The Americans say, "This person is a potential terrorist". Bombardier says "I never heard that, are you ready to start flight training yet?"

And we have to go through naked scanners and "enhanced pat-downs" on the less than million to one chance that a random person pulled out of an airport lineup is going to be a terrorist.

Why must they ignore American information when deciding whether or not to train a pilot? Because according to a Canadian law professor, American security laws "are based on stereotypes and racial profiling, and identify these groups (Muslims and Arabs) as national security threats.”

Indeed.

A few closing facts for the record. As soon as Mr. Latif was taken off the list as a security threat in 2008, Bombardier happily provided him with all the training he wanted. Bombardier has also trained a number of Muslim and Middle Eastern pilots since 9/11, just not ones that were considered a security risk. So obviously this was no pattern of systematic racial profiling on Bombardier's part.

Also, one may feel sorry for Mr. Latif if, as seems more than likely, he is an innocent person who got put on the list by mistake. But that's not Bombardier's fault, and they made the only responsible decision. After all, what if he wasn't innocent? And even if Bombardier had checked with the Canadian government (as they were faulted for not doing) and the Canadian government didn't have anything on him, there would still exist a significant question mark. 

There is security that is over the top, and there is security that just makes sense. Not letting the mouse guard the cheese, or the potential terrorist fly the plane, seems like common sense to me.


Tasha Kheiriddian
National Post
CTV
The Star 

Just for Fun

So for the record I have no idea what this is supposed to be advertising, but it is a pretty cool movie. Does your subway turn into a roller coaster?

H/T Samuel Kordik

Petition on Human Smuggling

   JJ Honasan, someone I know from the Canada Student Forums (Great event by the way, one which I highly recommend attending if at all possible), has put up a petition in support of a "National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking in Canada" as put forward by MP Joy Smith, one of the speakers at last year's CSF.

"It is quintessential that Canada have a National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking. According to the US Department of State’s 2008 Trafficking in Persons Report, Canada is a source, transit, and destination country for human trafficking.

The RCMP estimates that 600-800 persons are trafficked into Canada annually, predominantly for sexual purposes, and that an additional 1,500-2,200 persons are trafficked through Canada into the United States.
"

Sign it.

Drip, Drip, LEAK!!!

In Yes Minister, the incomparable show of "Why politicians are idiots and bureaucrats are the enemy" they depend a great deal on leaks. Drip this here, drip that there, embarrass so and so here. "The ship of state is the only known vessel that leaks from the top down".

As far as I can see the reason for freedom of speech is that there is always a tension, or the possibility of tension, between the rulers and subjects. Even in generally contented and peaceful nations, in which category I would put Canada, has issues in that regard. Sometimes as a result of the government trying to encourage too much contentment and peace, hate speech legislation springs to mind.

So to my mind there is a continual war, a great game, a gentleman's duel between the government and the people. They try to keep us in the dark about things, we try to find out about things. They try to play their games, we try to make a decent life for ourselves and ignore them as far as possible. They try to leak us the info they want leaked, we try to get more. Sometimes we cooperate with the government, we help them suppress information, we follow the laws, usually when we believe it is our best interest to do so or we can't be bothered resisting.

So I don't really see the point of getting too upset about the wikileaks affair. Maybe we scored a point, maybe the ship of state leaked again (unlikely I suppose but...), maybe no one scored a point and it was all just meaningless. (We learned that Canadians have an inferiority complex re the States, a pond is also wet and the Sahara is also dry.)

But I don't get the free speechers saying this shouldn't have happened. Why not? The claim about costing lives is very sketchy at this point, and the same could be said, is said, with potentially more credibility about "hate speech".

It embarrassed a lot of people. That's called life. I don't like having my country embarrassed more than the next person, probably less than the next lefty. But, if the truth will set you free, then what are we afraid of?

And if the truth is too much for us to take, do we deserve to continue?

And if it is all lies, well the great refrain of free speech is combat bad speech with good speech.

Do we believe that when it really matters?

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security" Ben Franklin

Go for it Mr. Franklin.

And don't kill Julian Assange.

Postscript to Hats

As a commentator has mentioned that my last post on hats is not as comprehensive, or inclusive, as might be desired. To remedy that I present Hats - Male.

1 megawatt of power = 5 jobs lost

Spain, once heralded as the model for the future of green economies has proposed slashing subsidies to solar and wind power by 30%, and is expected to withdraw financial backing for renewable power plants after economists discovered, too late, that every megawatt of renewable power generated cost five Spanish jobs (Ontario, having cribbed Spain's model, is just now confronting its own electrical cost reckoning).

Just what we need, more jobs lost in Ontario!

Thanks McGuinty and Smitherman.

Hats

As some of you may know I have a thing about hats. I like hats. I love hats. So you can imagine that even if I wasn't a monarchist already, the news that the royal engagement is likely to cause an upsurge in hat popularity would have filled me with the warm and fuzzies. And yet, on the other hand, what do you do when you find your personal fashion statement becoming a popular fad? Drop it in the interests of staying unique? Follow along and let everyone think you are a mindless trend follower? The questions that women have to grapple with.

Hat picture from my favorite hat shop, Beau Chapeau in Niagara-on-the-Lake.

Quote of the Day

I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man. ... I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace.
—Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1943

Money, Money, Money by the Pound

Is required to keep the wheels of revolution turning. (Cue evil laugh)

But we will refrain from imposing crop seizure on any peasants who may be reading my blog. We will just turn the thumb screws on your conscience and point out that if you really believed in freedom of speech you would support those on the front line...

"Fee Speech" Fundraiser for arrested Carleton Students.

JDL Chanukah Party to support Blazing Cat Fur on December. Honestly I'd like to go, but only if they have the purple kitty menorah.

And any spare cash you have lying around could go to support the great and wonderful Binks. Either that or some strategic purchases on his Amazon account.

Oh yes, and if you like Miss Marprelate and know of any spare jobs lying around, you could chuck them this way. There, that is my shameless pitch for the month. Got it over with, back to politics.

Airport Security

Look it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that when the Toronto Star is campaigning for the "Israelification" of airport security, that maybe this would be a good idea. It isn't like that kind of statement comes naturally to them after all.

And it also doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that evacuating Pearson terminal as a first response to a suspicious bag is not really a great idea. Actually let me amend that, it doesn't even come up to the level of an idea.

It also shouldn't come as a particular surprise to anyone that some people aren't crazy about getting sexually molested in order to fly on an airplane. Think I'm exaggerating? How would you describe this? “I was wearing shorts at the time – between the underwear, right on the skin, all the way around the back, all the way around my front, 360 degrees, touched inappropriately,”

And no it doesn't make me feel much better that it is same-sex pat-downs. After all, I have this sneaking suspicion that they aren't allowed to discriminate against gay and lesbian TSA officers. And frankly I don't want anyone touching me there regardless of orientation.

But it is wonderful to know that apparently Muslim women who wear hijabs don't, or shouldn't, have to go through a pat down. According to CAIR anyway.

Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.

Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands

That would be after you demanded to know why you were selected for screening, if it had anything to do with your wearing a hijab, and probably threatening to sue for discrimination.

Web page complete with contact info for CAIR, apparently in case these guidelines aren't followed by the TSA.

CONTACT: CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202-744-7726, or 202-488-8787, E-Mail: ihooper@cair.com; CAIR Communications Coordinator Amina Rubin, 202-488-8787, 202-341-4171, E-Mail: arubin@cair.com

The ACLU, in one of it's rare fits of usefulness, supplies a handy form for you to file a complaint.

In related news a woman is suing because she was publicly exposed during a search, and experienced crude jokes from airport staff.

And to make it all better, you have as much chance of getting cancer from the naked scanners as being a victim of a terrorist bombing.

But you can sue and send the TSA people to jail for up to three years if you can prove they acted inappropriately.

That's nice.

But I'll bet nearly impossible.

So how far is too far in the name of security?

Discuss.

Caledonia Part 2

Not only did law and order break down in Caledonia due to political correctness, those who want to speak about it are shut down by political correctness.

Christie Blatchford, a Governor-General award winner, wrote a book on Caledonia and got shut down by students at the University of Waterloo in an Ann Coulter reprise, presumably without the "Go back to America" slogans.

Remind me again why ANYONE thinks that universities are bastions of free speech, diversity, or intelligence?

Interestingly, no one shut down George Galloway, the students just protested in the designated areas, even though many strongly disagreed with him.

Buy Helpless: Caledonia's Nightmare of Fear and Anarchy, and How the Law Failed All of Us

Fix the United States Budget

Ohhh I like fun little toys. And right now, the New York Times has the funnest little toy of all fun little toys on their website called..... Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget. Cue little squeals of delight and hand rubbing from all the political geeks and junkies who like nothing better than a five minute fix to vital questions of international importance.

So here you go ladies and gentlemen, how would you fix the budget? Do tell in the comment section. I am almost scared to put my results up, because I didn't take a great deal of time doing this and I am sure everyone will disagree with my answers, if for completely different reasons. However I did manage to eliminate both the short and long term deficit while ringing up a surplus.

My results.

Marmalade's Report on the FTFF

Miss Marprelate attended the First Annual Free Thinking Film Festival this weekend and parachutes back to give a full report, or at least a full report of the movies she watched, due to overlapping schedules she regretfully missed some.

First off, great event and very glad I went. Some wonderful movies, terrific discussion panel, and I liked the Havarti and grapes.

The first evening got off to a rocky start with the movie Kalifornistan, which elicited a mixed response. Most of the (few) people I talked to hated the thing, myself included. It was an avant-garde movie based on the premise that the cause of terrorism is sexual repression and mental insanity (Not, for example, a religious devotion and worldview), featuring an exotic dancer and deranged terrorist. It was, to be really frank, stupid, offensive, liberal, and disturbing.

One sentence review: Worst movie I ever watched, don't even think about buying it.

The next morning things improved drastically with the movie Katyn, about the massacre of 20,000 Polish officers by the Soviets. It followed a few of the officers and their families in a gripping award-winning narrative film, which was nominated for an Oscar. I found it to be extremely powerful, moving, and actually very Christian movie. It did have some moments of very intense violence for those who are concerned about that, for example when they were executing the officers one by one as the officers were reciting the Lord's Prayer.

One sentence review: Not for children, but incredibly powerful and superbly crafted.

I changed gears for the next movie, a Michael Moore style documentary called Mine Your Own Business. It covered three proposed mining projects in Romania, Madagascar, and Chile which have all been virulently opposed by environmentalists. Meanwhile the local people are looking forward to getting a decent job at the mine and climbing out of poverty, a dream that is in peril due to environmentalists pressure. One notable moment in the movie was when an environmentalist who makes about $100,000 a year claims (not exact quote) that in this little village success is not measured in things like money, health, nutrition, or education but in smiles. And as rich people are more stressed and less happy these people don't want better jobs.

One sentence review: Good movie, interesting, not kind to environmentalists.

Afterwards Ezra Levant and Elizabeth May squared off on the oil sands. Ezra focused on how we should increase Canadian oil production because it is so much more ethical than other oil sources. Elizabeth May thought that was like coming up with better child labor conditions. She preferred to talk about our lack of a national energy strategy and how we need more manufacturing, less oil, and a way to get oil to the Maritimes without building a pipeline through green areas (alternative not expounded upon). CPAC was there recording it, so it will probably be broadcast by them at some point.

Generation Zero opened up Sunday afternoon with probably the most important documentary I saw at the festival. It focused on cycles of culture in history, and how the current economic collapse (which is just beginning) is a failure of morality. They cover a lot of stuff like the bank's completely irresponsible lending, which the governments (right and left) happily bailed them out of. In other words, we have privatized profits and nationalized risks, but capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell, it doesn't work.

One sentence review: Very important documentary vital to understanding why we are where we are, and where we are going.

Mr. Conservative went on my list of not so great films. In the interests of full disclosure, I watched about ten minutes of it, decided that this was going to be a waste of time, and skipped out to watch one of the other movies. However I got the report afterwards from someone who did stick it out, and was glad I didn't. Apparently Goldwater was a libertarian, not a conservative. His wife started Planned Parenthood in their state, he was pro-gay, and very anti the religious right.

One sentence review: Not my cup of tea, could be yours.

The panel discussion afterwards with Terry Glavin, John Robson, Karen Selick, and Joseph Ben Ami was great however.Unfortunately I missed the first part of Joseph Ben Ami's speech but liked what I heard. I also loved John Robson's definition of conservative as "metaphysical sanity" because we don't demand more of the universe than it can give. And he quoted Chesterton, so two thumbs up. I have to read him much more, he is fantastic (Robson, I already knew Chesterton was fantastic). At the very end they were talking about the connection between conservatives and libertarians, how we can dialog, etc, and Ben Ami and Robson both said that abortion is the litmus test, basically if we can't agree on that we can't agree on anything and we can't even really come to the table together. Which was a surprising thing for them to say there. They also said you cannot be a conservative without being a social conservative (at an event hosted by a gay conservative), or at least Robson said that straight out, Ben Ami was slightly more convoluted but that is what he believes. VladTepes blog was recording that, and he says it will be on his blog and probably the free thinking film website eventually.

We Need to Talk, which I watched in between Mr. Conservative and the panel discussion, was an interesting pro-abstinence, pro-father, pro-life, pro-Christian movie about ten black women from Chicago who had made some mistakes in their lives, and were now giving advice to younger women on how to avoid falling into the same traps. They spoke about how having intimate relationships outside the covenant (yes they used that word) of marriage was like an amputation, giving parts of yourself away to multiple guys. How they regretted their abortions more than anything else, how the loss of their fathers led them to search for male affirmation in all the wrong ways, and how that desire for love and affirmation can never be filled outside of a relationship with Christ. The only thing I regretted was that the message seemed incomplete, because they showed the negatives of a broken life well, but were weak on the positives of a whole life.

One sentence review: Due to my last regret I cannot quite rave about the movie, but otherwise excellent.

All in all I am glad I went. It would be unreasonable, I suppose, to expect that I would love every movie. My strongest regret was that I had to miss so many of the other ones due to overlapping schedules, but that is not a bad regret.

The FTFF left me wanting more. Good job to you all.

Remembrance Day

A link back to last year's Remembrance Day post, featuring my brother's amazing WWI serial story that was published in the Pembroke Daily Observer.