The Shotgun Blog
« February 3, 2008 - February 9, 2008 |Main| February 17, 2008 - February 23, 2008 »
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Licia Corbella on Syed Soharwardy
Licia Corbella reports on Syed Soharwardy’s visit with the Calgary Herald's editorial board.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on February 16, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack
More good news from Iraq
As the security situation in Iraq dramatically improved over the last year, the antiwar line switched to complaints over the lack of political progress in Iraq - as if killing terrorist was less important than making politicians get along.
Well, it turns out the politicians in Iraq are moving forward after all, which surprised even me. More to the point, the left will have be especially creative now in their attempts to make Iraq look like a failure.
I don't envy them.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on February 16, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Klaus Reelected in Czech Republic
Classical liberal, economic literate, and Euroskeptic Vaclav Klaus been elected to a second 5-year term as president of the Czech Republic, narrowly beating out opponent Jan Svejnar on the third round of voting. You may remember Klaus as the only head of state who has called global warming a myth and environmentalism a religion. The most interesting thing to watch about this all is that the Czech Republic will be inheriting the EU Presidency early next year. Klaus has frequently made criticisms of centralization in the EU and called it a threat to liberty.
Posted by Kalim Kassam on February 16, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Friday, February 15, 2008
Photos from Berkeley Marines Protest
From what I understand, no one is quite sure if Zombie of ZombieTime is male or female (although the consensus tends toward the latter.) Anyhow, she's put together another great photo essay on the Code Pink/ANSWER/World Can't Wait/Stalinist protest at the site of the Marine recruiting center in Berkeley, California.
What makes the photos especially interesting is that some of them are of counter-protesters (including a biker gang!) that showed up to -- ahem -- present the other side of the controversy.
I don't want to steal Zombie's thunder, so I'm only going to reproduce two of the photos here, along with a quotation from the essay I found particularly illuminating and disturbing at the same time. Apparently, there was quite an age gap between the protesters and the counter-protesters. Aside from the leaders, most of the protesters were really young, while the counter-protesters were more in the middle aged range.
In the two photos reproduced here and in the many others in Zombie's photo essay, you can see the two sides confront each other, the children versus the adults. To say that the kids were disrespectful is certainly an understatement.
According to Zombie,
"The children were giddy with power. It strongly reminded me of what happened during the Cultural Revolution in 1960s China, when high school students harassed and humiliated their teachers and other local authority figures -- all with the approval of the Commmunist Party officials, who were consciously trying to overthrow the old social order...Most of the kids there, contrary to what you might imagine, were middle class, the children of professors and intellectuals..."
I strongly recommend checking out Zombie's work for yourself.
Hat tip: Little Green Footballs
Posted by Terrence Watson on February 15, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Soharwardy coincidence?
From today's Calgary Herald: "Calgary police are investigating an assault on one of three women who recently launched a human rights complaint against a local Muslim leader," Syed Soharwardy.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on February 15, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack
Not a Leader: Stephane Dion on CBC's The Hour
This one speaks for itself...
(cross-posted at Flaggman's Canada)
Posted by Neil Flagg on February 15, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBack
Daniel Ortega endorses Barack Obama
The Senator now has the Communist child molester demographic nailed down.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on February 15, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Soharwardy: "Why I'm withdrawing my human rights complaint against Ezra Levant"
Syed Soharwardy, the Imam who initially filed the complaint against Ezra Levant for publishing the Muhammad cartoons in the Western Standard, has had a very serious change of heart. He is withdrawing the complaint, and has decided to make his reasons known in a Globe and Mail op-ed published today.
The whole thing is worth reading, although here is a choice excerpt:
"Having no previous experience with any human rights commission, I was unaware of the ongoing debate about whether such commissions should have narrower or broader mandates, or of the doubts many Canadians have about whether such commissions are the right venue in which to argue questions about hate speech.
"Subsequent discussions with several Muslim leaders, and more particularly with some of my Christian and Jewish friends, have led me to conclude that my complaint was beyond what I now believe should be the mandate of such a commission. I now am of the view that this matter should have been handled in the court of public opinion.
"Consequently, I am withdrawing my complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission against Mr. Levant's right to publish the offensive and hateful drawings.
"I believe his decision was irresponsible and was intended to cause strife, but I now appreciate that it may not fall outside the limits of free speech."
And he's extending an olive branch to Ezra, who is pursuing a legal case against Soharwardy for abuse of process:
"Which leads me to an offer to Ezra Levant: We clearly disagree about the cartoons; but I'm willing to sit down with you and discuss it.
"And if you really believe the central issue is that human rights commissions have over-broad mandates, then that is an issue on which we may now be able to converge."
Ezra's response to Soharwardy's piece?:
"Soharwardy has spent two years trying to have the Calgary Police Service arrest me, and the human rights commissions condemn me. What's happened instead is that he himself has been exposed as a tin-pot fascist -- and he's rekindled a national rededication to the idea of freedom of speech and the separation of mosque and state. That's why he's changed course, and is opting for a PR strategy. I know it's not a halal metaphor, but you just can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on February 15, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (85) | TrackBack
The HRC on Trial, Part 2
Ori Rubin has been busy digging into the law and the history of the Human Rights Commissions in Canada. How did a Commission with such laudable purposes and intentions become one of the largest threats to freedom of speech and expression in Canada? In his second of a three-part special series for the Standard, Rubin shines a light on the Commission and finds section 13 of the Human Rights Act to be the real danger.
An excerpt:
"...it's easy to see how the HRCs advantages in processing complaints of discrimination can make it dangerously effective at quashing political expression. The complaint process eats up a respondent's time and money. Then, the respondent goes up against a stacked house. Instead of a neutral judge, the respondent faces a Tribunal made up of members chosen to "reflect the diverse nature of [a province]" and for their "strong interest... in human rights." Nor is a public lawyer provided for the respondent, if he does not bring his own. Such an environment is almost equivalent to the presumption of guilt. Perhaps the "spectacular 100 per cent conviction rate" noted by Mark Steyn is not so hard to understand." Read more...
Posted by Western Standard on February 15, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Thursday, February 14, 2008
No raves for Rove
The Fraser Institute is bringing Karl Rove -- yes, THE Karl Rove -- to Vancouver on Monday, February 18 for something it calls an "Illuminismo" event.
I figured it would be fascinating to be on the receiving end of Rove's "illuminations" (making me an illuminated participant, or so it would seem) and also figured that Shotgunners would enjoy a report on the event, so I asked Dean Pelkey, the FI's director of communications, about media access. No way was I going to fork over the $500 per head that members of the public are being asked to ante up.
But Pelkey confirmed only today that "we are not providing any media passes to the Karl Rove event."
Hmmm. B.C.'s leading conservative think tank brings one of the most influential conservative figures of the past decade to the city for an exclusive speaking engagement, and they don't want any publicitiy about it, even from a reliably level-headed fellow like me? Go figure.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on February 14, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
Ban on Sale of Sex Toys Overturned; Ron Paul Dismayed
...but not in time for Valentine's Day, unfortunately.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited Lawrence v. Texas in its ruling against the Texas statute. Here's a nice quote:
"Just as in Lawrence, the state here wants to use its laws to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct," the appeals judges wrote. "The case is not about public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex. It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the state is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct. This is an insufficient justification after Lawrence."
This is excellent news, and implies Lawrence is as significant as some suggested. As some many recall, in Lawrence v. Texas the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting gay sex, decisively overturning the Court's previous ruling on the issue in Bowers v. Hardwick. The decision in Lawrence was based on the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment.
As for the significance of the ruling, Cato scholar Randy Barnett explains here that
"Contrary to how their decision was widely reported the Lawrence majority did not protect a 'right of privacy.' Instead, quite simply, they protected 'liberty.'
[...]
Although he never acknowledges it, Justice Kennedy is employing here what I have called a 'presumption of liberty' that requires the government to justify its restriction on liberty, instead of requiring the citizen to establish that the liberty being exercised is somehow 'fundamental.' "
What can justify such a restriction? In Lawrence, the Court quoted Justice Stevens' dissent in Bowers: on its own, "the fact that the majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice."
Thus, in the case at hand, the belief that the sale and/or use of sex toys is immoral is not enough to justify a statewide ban on the practice. Such a ban, whether enacted in Kansas or California, violates the liberty guaranteed to all persons under the 14th Amendment.
A libertarian revolution is truly in the works, and it's flying in the teeth of Ron Paul's failing "rEVOLution" -- a movement that would have stripped federal courts of the power to strike down oppressive laws like the one in Texas.
Good for the court. Too bad for Ron Paul. The individual's right to live her life as she sees fit trumps the "liberty" of the mob to tell her what to do in the privacy of her own home.
Since Ron Paul is all about amending
the Constitution to fight the hordes of pregnant brown women streaming over the Mexican border, why hasn't be proposed an amendment explicitly saying that the Bill of Rights applies to the states as much as to the
federal government?
Think what that would do to ensure freedom of the individual. Think about what an amendment enshrining Barnett's "presumption of liberty" into law would do.
As a libertarian, I'm glad Ron Paul's bid for the Republican nomination is circling the drain.
Hat tip: A Stitch in Haste
Posted by Terrence Watson on February 14, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (53) | TrackBack
WStv: Soharwardy drops complaint (CBC)
Posted by Western Standard on February 14, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Dissenters to descend on NYC
Make your prediction now about how much mainstream media coverage the Heartland Institute's big International Conference on Climate Change, slated to take place early next month in New York, will receive.
Given that the conference's primary, politically incorrect purpose is "to bring together the world’s leading scientists, economists, and policy experts to explain the often-neglected 'other side' of the climate change debate," I'm guessing the gathering will be completely ignored, even though it's being held in the news media capital of the world.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on February 14, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (23) | TrackBack
Resurrecting the death penalty?
Just when it seemed that the death-penalty debate in Canada was all but dead, Ipsos-Reid has conducted a poll on the subject, whose results have been summarized in this morning's Vancouver Sun. Here's a link to the full release on the two-week-old poll.
That such a poll was conducted in the first place is interesting. But even more interesting are the poll's results, which show that a solid majority of Albertans and British Columbians--and a slim majority of Ontarians--want the country to reinstutute capital punishment.
It's an issue that my old B.C. Report colleague, Robin Brunet, explored in this recent story, which used the conviction of serial killer Robert Pickton as a catalyst to explore the subject.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on February 14, 2008 in Crime | Permalink | Comments (25) | TrackBack
What has the Obama-Clinton hype meant for the Democrats? Nothing.
Conventional wisdom down here is that the dramatic turnout numbers in Democratic primaries has created an energy that makes the Democratic nominee the favorite no matter who it is.
Yet the polling data (FWIW) show that neither of them can break out of a statistical tie with John McCain in crucial battleground states. In fact, they're on the wrong side of them (i.e., they're trailing within the margin of error).
This election isn't over, not by a long shot.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on February 14, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Saving Golubchuk
Yesterday, a judge in Winnipeg ruled that Samuel Golubchuk, an 84-year-old Orthodox Jew, is to remain on life support. Doctors at Grace General Hospital had wanted to pull the plug, in spite of Sam's family's protestations to the contrary. Whether or not Sam stays on life support will be settled in a court trial some time very soon.
If Canada included more private options for medicine, this wouldn't have been a legal issue. Sam's family, friends, and community could have paid for his medical care without having to go to court.
Joseph C. Ben-Ami, president of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, explains Sam's predicament, and offers his diagnosis in "Saving Golubchuk: God save us from our health care system."
An excerpt:
"The intention of the architects of Canada's government-run health care system were noble. They wanted to ensure that everyone had access to proper medical care regardless of their ability to pay. The belief that the best way to achieve this objective was by making taxpayers responsible for everyones medical bills, instead of individual patients, turned out to be a colossal mistake. By detaching consumers--that's what patients are, after all--from the cost of their consumption, government control only succeeded in setting off an explosion in demand, causing health care budgets for all governments to spiral out of control." Read the rest here...
Posted by Western Standard on February 14, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (24) | TrackBack
Valentines from Dion
J.J. McCullough, resident cartoonist here at the Standard, gives us his take on the Valentine's Day cards Stephane Dion may be sending out to his sweethearts across the country in "Valentines from Dion."
Posted by Western Standard on February 14, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Media derisions aside, Iraq really is getting better
I know Canadian media still love to rip us for liberating Iraq, but I have remained optimistic about the place - even about its evolving politics. Now, I'm not alone. Here's what Rich Lowry of National Review had to say:
. . . everyone—Sunni and Shia, north, south, west, and center—hates the central government, which is creating the potential for a ground-up political movement that could eventually create a more responsive, practical government.
Come December of 2009, the voters of Iraq will finally elect a government free of Iranian interference.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on February 13, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack
Danish cartoon controversy redux
This time, major Danish newspapers, like Politiken and Berlingske Tidende, are republishing cartoons of Muhammad in order to show their commitment to freedom of speech and as a response to the arrest of three people accused of plotting to murder Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist responsible for the image of Muhammad with a bomb for a turban.
For the story, check out Ori Rubin's first offering in his three-part series entitled "The HRC on Trial" published on our website two weeks ago.
The Jyllands-Posten, the paper that originally published the cartoons in 2005, reprinted the bomb-for-a-turban cartoon yesterday.
Excerpt from the story:
"We are doing this to document what is at stake in this case, and to unambiguously back and support the freedom of speech that we as a newspaper will always defend," said the Copenhagen-based Berlingske Tidende.
"Tabloid Ekstra Bladet reprinted all 12 drawings.
"At least three European newspapers - in Sweden, the Netherlands and Spain - also reprinted the cartoon as part of their coverage of the Danish arrests.
"Intelligence police arrested two Tunisians and a Danish citizen of Moroccan origin in western Denmark on Tuesday for allegedly plotting to kill Westergaard."
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on February 13, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (17) | TrackBack
We're guessing MP Keith Martin, at least, will show up
Has the Shotgun acknowledged/promoted the plan for the April 12 Free Speech Rally on Parliament Hill yet?
If so, consider yourself reminded. If not, here's a link to the site dedicated to this important event.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on February 13, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Alberta’s control freaks
Alberta NDP leader Brian Mason today announced his party’s three part strategy for affordable housing.
Here’s what it looks like:
• Implement rent controls equal to the cost of living plus 2%
• Close condo-conversion loopholes that allow landlords to put long term tenants out of their homes
• Establish a first time homebuyers’ assistance program, as recommended by the housing task force.
In a Western Standard exclusive, Patrick McGee addressed the issue of rent control in his article Control Freaks:
Economists argue that Alberta's modest measures to stem rising rents won't work, and may make matters worse
“Except for bombing," asserted the socialist economist Assar Linbeck, "rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city." Indeed, experts across the political spectrum are virtually unanimous that rent control reduces the quantity and quality of housing available, hurting the tenants it is intended to help.
Read the complete article here.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on February 13, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
Multiculturalism creates segregation
"Canadians revel in the romanticism of Trudeau's multiculturalism, but fail to realize its role in creating ethnic ghettoes . . .[the] fear [that integration equals the loss of individual ethnic heritage] has paralysed Canadian social growth. Until we acknowledge that our self-imposed mosaic is not a perfect system, we'll never construct a mature, cohesive national identity."
Read all of Scott Young's trenchant analysis of the balkanization of Canada, published (surprisingly!) in today's Vancouver Sun, here.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on February 13, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack
Now that he's the front-runner, will Obama get some serious questions?
Until now, MSM has basically fawned over Barack Obama. Sadly, I fear it's for the usual reasons (involving race). That's not fair to the American people, and truth be told, history shows it's not necessarily favorable to the beneficiary either.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on February 13, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
How Free, How Far? - Freedom of Speech Panel in Mississauga
If you're in the Toronto/Mississauga area, consider coming out to a panel discussion this afternoon hosted by the University of Toronto Laissez-Faire Club about the case of Salman Hossain, the UTM student who has called for the killing of Canadian soldiers. The topics visited will include what the appropriate response should be from both the government and the school administration. Event details below:
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
1:00pm - 3:00pm
Student Centre, Presentation Room
University of Toronto Mississauga
Mississauga, ONHow Free, How Far? - Freedom of speech in our community
Salman Hossain, a student associated with the University of Toronto
Mississauga has made comments which has caused a great media stir, and
shined a negative light on our beloved institution.
What is the appropriate response from the UTM community?UTM's bright minds, both faculty and students come together to debate
the issues.
The event will feature specialist panelists as well as refreshments,
so please join us!Featured Panelists:
- Professor Mark Lippincott
- Jane Ngobia, Resource Officer on Diversity, Equity and Leadership
- Moderated by Professor Pierre Desrochers
Posted by Kalim Kassam on February 13, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
That "(Stop) Talking Points Memo"
My piece in the National Post re: the Justice Minister's "shut up, he explained" memo, advising Conservative MPs to hit the mute button when asked about those pesky Human Rights Commissions.
Posted by Kathy Shaidle on February 13, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Obama is now the favorite
That is the main story of tonight.
You, dear Canadian reader, will start to hear about how Obama can reshape the entire American political landscape; how he can usher in a new, Democratic, left-wing era; how we can bring dramatic change to Washington . . .
Posted by D.J. McGuire on February 13, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Mike Huckacockroach & Glove Romney
Well, almost all the results are in from today's US presidential primaries (except for the under-reported Democrats Abroad primary) and they are pretty clear. Obama continued his weekend winning streak today in the Potomac region (Virginia, Maryland, and D.C.), picking up approximately 63 more delegates, with Hillary getting 28. Since the Republican contests were winner-take-all, McCain's sweep of the three contests means he'll be getting an 89 delegate boost, further securing his position as the presumptive GOP nominee. With all this talk about how the in-the-know pundits in the Capitol region would be choosing their candidates and voting, it's interesting to look at the flip-side: How much do average Americans know about the candidates and how do they choose between them?
Jay Leno investigated:
Evidently they don't know much more than your average resident of Beijing, China:
What's the moral? H.L. Mencken said it even better than Leno: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
Posted by Kalim Kassam on February 12, 2008 in Humour | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Complaint dropped against Ezra Levant
According to the National Post, Syed Soharwardy has withdrawn the complaint against Ezra Levant from publishing the Muhammad cartoons. (Really? Yes, really.)
Here's the reason Soharwardy offered:
"Over the two years that we have gone through the process, I understand that most Canadians see this as an issue of freedom of speech, that that principle is sacred and holy in our society."
Got that? Freedom of speech is sacred and holy in Canada. (He said that? Yup, he did.)
"I believe Canadian society is mature enough not to absorb the messages that the cartoons sent. Only a very small fraction of Canadian media decided to publish those cartoons."
There you have it--we are mature enough, as a society, to have freedom of speech and expression. We don't need the paternalist state to filter the media like mom filtered your TV shows and your access to MySpace. (Does that mean he won't file charges if someone posts the cartoons again? Uhm... Check with your lawyer.)
Ezra doubts Soharwardy's sincerity. He called it a "temporary tactical truce," and continued:
"I don't believe him. He thought this would be easy to do, just sic the human rights commission on me and it would be done. But I decided to fight back.
"He's hurting right now... What he's now saying he is going to do is not a true reflection of his feelings."
Saying that Soharwardy's values are "out of sync" with Canada's, Ezra plans on launching a civil suit against him to recover the hundreds of hours he spent researching his case, defending himself, and appearing before the Alberta Human Rights Commission.
It's not so difficult to see why Soharwardy is backing down. After news of the human rights complaint reached the blogosphere and the broader anglosphere (including the U.S.), Canada's speech squelching became the subject of outraged scorn and ridicule. That we even have a section 13 that would legally punish a media outlet for publishing what Ezra called "the central artefact in the largest news story at the time" way back when is in itself an offense to, let's see here, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and maybe even freedom of religion (if that is understood broadly enough to include freedom from being religious in the first place. The prohibition on depictions of Muhammad especially--and humans in general--is a religious prohibition. You are prohibited from doing it only if you are a member of a specific religion, and you want to remain in good standing with them. It is not a prohibition on atheists and Christians and deists and Buddhists, and so on.)
Dropping these charges is a good first step. Backing up Keith Martin, who had the courage to put forward a motion to eliminate section 13, is a good second step (where are the federal Tories on this? And the NDP? And the Greens? You give lip service to freedom of speech, let's see you risk some political capital on this issue.)
This battle is far from over. Until section 13 lays in the trash heap where it belongs, I'll be keeping my (figurative) powder dry. I suggest you do the same.
UPDATE: Reason magazine (my personal favourite) weighs in on the battle against the HRC in "Mandatory Niceness." As everything always is from Reason, this, too, is worth a read.
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on February 12, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (49) | TrackBack
Charged with being a Christian so-con
B.C. teacher Christopher Kempling is facing yet another attack from the provincial teachers' college, which this time is aiming to drive him completely out of the profession. Among the new charges against him: that he stood as a candidate for the Christian Heritage Party. You can find lots of background about this important free-speech case here.
And here's the full text of Kempling's latest letter, describing his plight and asking for help:
A Letter from Chris Kempling February 5, 2008 Friends: I regret to inform you that the BC College of Teachers has again cited me for conduct unbecoming a teacher, in a letter dated January 28, 2008. They have cited me for participating in a CBC radio interview where I quoted the Bible saying that homosexual behaviour is a barrier to salvation, for contributing an essay discussing the philosophical differences between social liberals and social conservatives (published in the Calgary Herald on December 29, 2003), for publishing a scholarly article in a German family journal on the topic of homosexuality, for offering orientation change therapy as part of my private counselling practice and mentioning this in a radio interview, and, incredibly, for "knowing" that an article written by Christian Heritage Party leader Ron Gray in support of me was posted on the party's website. They also cited me for being "the local representative of the Christian Heritage Party". This is certainly true as I was the candidate for the CHP, Canada's sixth largest registered political party, in the last federal election in the Cariboo-Prince George riding (I came 5th out of 8 candidates.) All of the items listed occurred between February, 2003 and April, 2005. The last time I checked, we had freedom of speech and freedom of religion in Canada, and the right to join the political party of our choice. It appears to me that these rights are in jeopardy, as the BC College of Teachers has threatened to withdraw my license to teach, despite the fact that there were no complaints registered with the College as a result of any of the items they listed. I am currently working in the Quesnel school district, am abiding by my letter of direction, and have been told by my principal that he has no concerns about my conduct or my job performance, which includes working professionally with students of all orientations. This is extremely distressing for me and my family, and I would welcome your prayers. It appears that I may have to ask those who care about freedom to help me defend myself again. The registered trust fund is called the: Christian Public School Teachers' Legal Defense Fund, c/o Mr. Jim Sagert, Trustee, 798 Beaubien Avenue, Quesnel, BC V2J 1A6. Letters of acknowledgement will be issued, but, as it is not a charity, there can be no tax receipts. I am not afraid to face them but please do not leave me like Uriah to face the enemy alone. I take comfort in the words of our Lord: "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven..." I am happy, because I know my Christian brothers and sisters will stand with me as I face this trial yet again. Dr. Chris Kempling Psy.D. R.C.C. Quesnel, BC How to Contribute Financially to Chris Kempling's Legal Defence A trust fund has been set up. It is the "Christian Public School Teachers' Legal Defense Fund." Money contributed to this fund will help Christopher Kempling with the expenses of his legal defence. Subsequently, money in the fund after Chris's defence can be used to help other Christian teachers who may find themselves in a similar position. If you would like to contribute to the trust fund, you may make a contribution at any Royal Bank branch. The transit number is 4720. The account number is 101-030-5. If you prefer to contribute by cheque, send your contribution to: Christian Public School Teachers' Legal Defense Fund
on the Latest BC College of Teachers Action Against Him
c/o Mr. Jim Sagert, Trustee
798 Beaubien Avenue
Quesnel, BC V2J 1A6
Posted by Terry O'Neill on February 12, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (17) | TrackBack
Justice Antonin Scalia on Torture
Check out this link to a summary of an interview BBC Radio's "Law In Action" radio programme did with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The summary includes a link you can follow to listen to the interview itself. Yes, the Brit interviewer is just a tad condescending, but it's worth it just to hear Justice Scalia's responses to the questions.
As always, he's eloquent, witty, and, best of all, extremely clear about where he stands on the issues (except, perhaps, on one issue; more on that below.)
If you don't feel like going to the BBC website to hear the interview, here's a direct link.
For commentators, the most noteworthy aspect of the interview is Scalia's suggestion that "so-called" torture may not be unconstitutional on the grounds of the 8th Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
One of Scalia's claims is that the 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, i.e. for a crime. But "is it obvious that what can't be done for punishment can't be done to exact information that is crucial to the society?" His implication is that the answer to this question isn't obvious at all, and he chides those who answer it too quickly.
But while the interviewer wants to nail Scalia down to a more definitive answer to the torture question, Scalia is pretty good at evading.
Of course, this discussion of torture is especially interesting in light of the CIA's recent admission that it waterboarded three detainees following 9/11. As far as I can tell, Scalia never says whether or not waterboarding is torture, but his reference to "so-called" torture might be indicative to the current dispute about whether the practice of waterboarding is torture or not.
Of relevance is this 2002 essay (cited in the interview) by Alan Dershowitz, in which he argues for the adoption of what he calls "torture warrants." Dershowitz's essay is extremely interesting, not least because he seems to engage the same kind of smug superiority Scalia accuses those who answer the torture question too quickly of exhibiting.
Like Scalia, Dershowitz recognizes that in a true ticking-time-bomb scenario, as rare as one might be, torture (or coercive interrogation, if you like) is eventually going to be used, if only after other methods of trying to get information out of the suspect fail. The question a society must address collectively is whether to let it occur "in the shadows" or whether to accept that it will occur and figure out how to regulate its occurrence in a way that will ensure basic liberties will be respected.
It's tricky. Some will claim that ticking bomb scenarios never occur, or that, even if one were to occur, torture would be ineffective as a means to getting the required information. But, as President Bush said in this interview with Fox News:
"The American people have got to know that what we did in the past gained information that prevented an attack. And for those who criticize what we did in the past, I ask them, which attack would they rather have not permitted -- stopped? Which attack on America did they -- would they have said, well, you know, maybe it wasn't all that important that we stop those attacks."
Here, Bush seems to be saying that ticking bomb scenarios have occurred (and been averted) because of the interrogation techniques practiced by the CIA, including waterboarding. If this is correct, then a blanket ban on waterboarding and other coercive interrogation techniques could have one of two effects:
First, it might lead to a failure to stop certain future terrorist attacks.
Second, and perhaps more likely, in true ticking bomb situations, waterboarding (and other, even even more morally dubious techniques) will still be used, except "in the shadows," in a completely unregulated way, with no clear record of it being done, and no safeguards to ensure it is done properly.
Neither of these alternatives seem palatable (nor are they mutually exclusive.) But bringing waterboarding in from the shadows presents its own share of difficulties. As I said: tricky! -- and perhaps good reason to accept Scalia's point about dismissing the use of coercive interrogation techniques too quickly and too smugly.
Riding the moral high horse can be really costly.
Posted by Terrence Watson on February 12, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack
How green is my Gordon
Think your local premier or governor is green? Well, B.C.'s got you beat. Check out the massive list of tree-hugging, carbon-cutting, energy-saving initiatives in today's B.C. Throne Speech.
With Premier Gordon Campbell at the helm, the B.C. Liberals are transforming themselves into the B.C. Green Party even as we watch.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on February 12, 2008 in Canadian Provincial Politics | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
The Greens should look to the market
Environmentalists continue to push for ever-more regulations to help the environment. But old regulations are keeping the Canadian-made ZENN (Zero Emission, No Noise), and the Toyota Prius off the streets. In "Unacceptably Green," Tim Mak gently suggests that the greens should look at good, old-fashioned free market deregulation first.
Posted by Western Standard on February 12, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
PMO to MPs: if free speech comes up, change the subject
Of course, the PM's wimpiness and indifference in the face of widespread criticism of our "Human Rights" Commissions simply reflects the wimpiness and indifference of the Average Canadian.
Posted by Kathy Shaidle on February 12, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBack
No Mo' Nato?
As the Afghanistan vote in the House of Commons, which could topple the government and trigger an election, slowly approaches, it might be worth considering whether the vote will have implications beyond the Afghanistan mission itself: whether it may affect the very nature and role of NATO going forward. Could a defeat of the Conservative proposal or an approval of today's Liberal proposal, which would notify NATO that a 2011 total withdrawal is forthcoming, sound the death knell for NATO? Perhaps.
Andrew Bacevich makes the case that NATO has already ceased to be an effective military alliance.
"In Afghanistan, NATO is failing. Nominally, all 26 alliance members are contributing to the war effort, with some 43,000 total troops deployed. In reality, stripping away the forces provided by the United States, Britain and Canada, the alliance has fielded barely 20,000 soldiers -- this to pacify a country that is 50% larger than Iraq."
The questions about NATO keep on coming. Adrian Hamilton, in the pages of the UK's The Independant, wonders "What the hell is a North Atlantic alliance doing in a north Asian country at all?" He's probably premature in stating that "[t]he row over troop commitments in Germany, as in Canada, has shown there isn't the democratic support for a foreign venture such as this among the public of the alliance," but if the Conservatives don't get their way in March or the 40th Canadian Federal Election, that proposition will have to be taken more seriously.
With the Cold War long over, the European states united under the EU, and the allied states no longer putting forward sufficient troops to support interventions like the one in Afghanistan, we would need to have a serious debate about whether NATO serves a purpose in the 21st century, and if so, what exactly that is.
H/T: Andrew Sullivan
Posted by Kalim Kassam on February 12, 2008 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack
Political Vice Tax
Believe it or not I actually make the case for a new tax: a tax on politicians!
Posted by Gerry Nicholls on February 12, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Saint Samuel of Kingfisher
At a time when pretty much everything written in Canadian media about Wal-Mart is reflexively anti-corporatist, it was truly refreshing to read Fazil Mihlar's piece in the Vancouver Sun calling for Wal-Mart to receive the Nobel Peace Prize and be beatified by the Vatican. Though it was surely written tongue-in-cheek, and the second proposal is admittedly quite silly, men like Sam Walton should be seriously considered for the Nobel Peace Prize, he's far more deserving than Al Gore or the IPCC. Mihlar's article is no shameful apologetic for a necessary evil but a brazen defence of the uplifting effect that Wal-Mart has for people around the world. To those who say that Canada doesn't need more Wal-Marts, Mihlar answers that consumer demand determines their necessity, not the edict of some community activist, newpaper columnist, bureaucrat, or politician. His argument in brief:
"CONSIDER THAT WAL-MART:
- Provides employment to 1.9 million people; the best defence against poverty is a job.
- Creates thousands of job opportunities for people in developing countries like China and India; this keeps hunger at bay in many households.
- Doles out hundreds of millions of dollars each year in dividends that help fund the retirement of millions of people; the company had sales in excess of $348 billion and a net profit of $11.3 billion in 2007.
- Sells food, clothing and other necessities to Canadians, Americans and others at prices that are 15 to 25 per cent below what other supermarkets charge; this helps millions of low-income families stretch their dollars.
- Pushes the inflation rate down and helps keep interest rates low; this comes in handy for millions of families when borrowing to buy a house or household appliances."
While all of this is true, and Wal-Mart is undoubtedly one of the best beneficiaries of poor and middle class Americans, there are some real problems with the way Wal-Mart conducts its business. I'm not talking about their unwillingness to provide all employees complete health-insurance, their unfriendliness to unions, or their "preying upon" the "defenseless poor," the two practices I'm concerned about are these:
Wal-Mart has a nasty habit of aggressively lobbying for minimum wage increases at the federal and state level. Minimum wage laws are perhaps the biggest source of unemployment amongst those who need work the most, those with few skills, little education, and no options. The main reason behind their support of minimum wage increases is that Wal-Mart, due to its better efficiency, can successfully cut costs to be able to afford wages above the minimum and still make a profit; its smaller competitors often cannot. I'm all for free-competition but this tactic of getting the government involved in bullying its competitors out of business is not acceptable and is not free-enterprise.
Secondly, if this 2004 report is to be believed, Wal-Mart is a queen amongst corporate welfare queens, with over $1 billion in direct and indirect subsidies to the company taken from the pockets of taxpayers. The losses are not only for the taxpayer, but retailers who don't get such extensive government support operate at a disadvantage. This isn't free-enterprise either.
On balance, Wal-Mart is a shining example of the ability of enterprise to lift multitudes out of poverty and improve the lives of millions, I just wish they would stop sullying the good name of capitalism by bringing further government intervention into what should be the purely private realm of business where the rules of voluntary contract, free association, and private property rule the day.
Hat tip: Steven Horwitz & Brad Spangler
Posted by Kalim Kassam on February 12, 2008 in Trade | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
Monday, February 11, 2008
I fear I must announce this
Posted by D.J. McGuire on February 11, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Obama Office Proudly Displays Communist Flag
Newsbusters picks up on this telling detail.
One of Barak Hussein Obama's new offices in Texas is proudly flying a Cuban flag emblazoned with a picture of Che Guevara.
I doubt if we'll see even a single news story about this. The amazing thing isn't merely that someone put it up - but that no one else there seemed to even notice. And people wonder why I describe the Democrat Party as the "party of treason."
Imagine the uproar (the very correct uproar, I need not add) if a Republican office was displaying a Nazi flag with a picture of Adolf Hitler on it. Though, of course, as our friend Jonah Goldberg notes, that would be more appropriate for a Democratic office as well.
Hell, for a Republican comparison, imagine the uproar if some Republican office had a giant picture of Joe McCarthy in it. (Leaving aside the fact that, in all reality, Tailgunner Joe was a stand-up guy).
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on February 11, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBack
Bluenosed
In Halifax this past weekend, the PC Party of Nova Scotia held its Annual General meeting. This scribbler attended. After my undergrad, grad and law school studies in Halifax from 1997 to 2005, it was nice to go back and see some old friends in the city.
Say what you will about the N.S. Tories on many policies, and I have said my share, they still hold the line on balanced budgets . They still lead off their convention opening with the fiscally responsible legacy of the truly great Dr. John Hamm and their current leader, Premier Rodney MacDonald still maintains that the biggest difference between the NDP and the PC Party of Nova Scotia is that the NDP wants to blindly throw money at every problem. As far as I can tell, he's right. So far, Nova Scotia has been spared the lunacy of an NDP government. I say lunacy not just because of the basket casing caused by Glen Clark in B.C. or Rae's work to make Ontario one of the highest taxed jurisdictions on the continent, but also because of how the NDP react to the present Tory government in Nova Scotia.
It's not as though the Tories aren't walking a tight rope here. It's not as though they haven't tried the road of compromise. MacDonald is is a hip premier, but he's also gone ahead with a tuition freeze and and a pharmacare program. I'm not saying I'd enact policies like that, I'm just saying that these are Rodney's significant olive branches to the opposition in a minority situatuon. And how do the NDP respond?
"Not enough;"
"Spend More;"
"Expand government."
The old cliché about giving an inch comes to mind . . .perhaps some lessons have been learned on that . . . . yet as sometimes happens at conventions, in the face of a hard challenge from the dippers, some folks want to try more olive branches and some leftish resolutions make the agenda. As I often say, it's a political party, not a choir - rejoice in that.
In light of all that, Rodney's promising to hang tough on keeping the books balanced, he's provided level government on several issues, he's turning down irresponsible demands from the NDP and the Liberals all over the place, he's drawing some sort of line and in doing so he's showing leadership. . .
I can report that Rodney's party has avoided some of the worst features of what George Perlin once called "Tory syndrome." Instead of polarization and crippling division, Rodney's Tories are familial and united yet pluralistic and fair.
In other words, the tent's not just big, it's comfortable for most folks while serving some clear purposes. In that way, it's obviously much better than the big top circus that Dexter's NDP runs next door; and the Tories definitely throw a better party. Good on them. It's an impressive caucus too. The small business community in that province should lend as much support to these folks as possible; They're light years ahead of their opponents -- and when the chips are down, like it or not, that's important in politics. Ask the business guys who gambled on letting the NDP get elected in other provinces whether they'd do it again . . . most will just shudder and shiver . .
Defence Minister Peter MacKay spoke to a sold out crowd about Canada's Mission in Afghanistan, and in Nova Scotia, with a disproportionately high number of its residents in the armed forces, this is a topic that's close to home. What I liked the most about the minister's message was that he made it clear that our troops are doing so much more than the opposition MPs care to acknowledge.
It was an invigorating weekend of politics for this observer. There are many flavors of Toryism in our federation, and form time to time even the connoisseur prefers a premium blend of conservatives to a single malt. . .
Posted by Liam O'Brien on February 11, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
"Police neutrality" in Berkeley As Code Pink Protests the Marines
Following up a previous post about protests occuring in Berkeley, CA at a Marine recruiting center, take a look at this video. Since I was unsure about how to embed the video in this page from its original source, I uploaded a copy to YouTube. The copy I made is embedded below.