The Shotgun Blog
« May 11, 2008 - May 17, 2008 |Main| May 25, 2008 - May 31, 2008 »
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Libertarian Party nominees' philosophical groundings
I haven't said anything about the convention: for that coverage go here, here, here and here. But this answer from the live-cast C-SPAN LP presidential debate that told me a lot more about the candidates than all the other profiles I have read:
Q: Who is the philosopher who most influenced you?
Bob Barr: Ayn Rand
Mike Gravel: Solon
George Phillies: 1st. Marcus Tullius Cicero, 2nd. Barry Goldwater
Marc Jingozian: Benjamin Franklin
Mary Ruwart: Ayn Rand, (introduced Ruwart to libertarianism, but had serious flaws)
Steve Kubby: David Nolan (others including Lao Tsu)
Wayne Allen Root: Yogi Berra
To catch the rest of the debate watch live here.
This is a much more interesting convention than 2004, the caliber of candidates, level of media attention and potential for impact in the race are all much higher. It looks like the Radical Caucus and their Anti-Barr allies will succeed in making Mary Ruwart the candidate instead of Bob Barr. My own opinion is that many of the radical libertarians aren't supporting the right candidate.
Posted by Kalim Kassam on May 24, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Friday, May 23, 2008
Mass detention of religious minorities in Iran - First Bahai's and now Christians
I've been busy dealing with the fundraising stuff recently but it doesn't mean that the important news should be ignored or set aside. Unfortunately, Tehran's Amir-Kabir University independent news website informs us (in Persian) that as many as 10 newly Christian converts have been detained in the southern Iranian city of Shiraz where a suspicious blast killed several people in a mosque. The Amir-Kabir Univ's website mentions that the Islamic regime of Iran is now trying to tie these ex-Muslims to that bombing and prosecute them. As you know the penalty for either of those two so-called crimes in Iran is death.
The Iranian regime's recent detention of Bahai's leadership also demonstrates the evil nature of this Islamofascist establishment that has hijacked and abused a once proud nation since 1979.
Posted by Winston on May 23, 2008 in Crime, Current Affairs, Religion | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko to visit Canada
OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced that Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko will arrive in Canada for a state visit from May 26 to 28.
The two leaders will have the opportunity to discuss bilateral and international issues, including the further development of our political and commercial ties, Ukraine's future in NATO, and cooperation on Afghanistan.
President Yushchenko will be accompanied by several ministers, including Foreign Minister Volodymyr Ohryzko, and his wife, Kateryna Yushchenko.
On May 26, he will address Parliament and meet with the speakers of the Senate and of the House of Commons. President Yushchenko’s visit to Canada will also include stops in Winnipeg and Toronto.
-30-
I’ll be sure to get my hair done.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on May 23, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBack
Ezra Levant to speak at Fraser Institute luncheon
Media Advisory: Former Western Standard Publisher Ezra Levant to Discuss Freedom of Speech in Canada at Fraser Institute Luncheon
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwire - May 23, 2008) - Former Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant's refusal to toe the line of political correctness and his decision in 2006 to print the controversial Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in his magazine landed him before the Alberta Human Rights Commission.
Join Levant for an update on his case and hear his thoughts on the importance of protecting freedom of speech in Canada during a Fraser Institute luncheon in Vancouver on Tuesday, May 27.
Levant appears regularly on TV and radio as a political pundit and is the author of several books. Before founding the Western Standard, he worked in Ottawa for several opposition leaders and as a lawyer in Calgary.
Interested media are invited to attend.
Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Time: 12:15 pm-1:30 pm
(Levant will speak from 12:15 pm-1:00 pm, followed by 30 minutes of questions)
Location:
Fraser Institute Boardroom
4th Floor, 1770 Burrard Street
Vancouver, BC
-30-
As you would expect, this event is almost sold out. Visit www.fraserinstitute.org for more details.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on May 23, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Huseyin Celil letter smuggled out
There are fewer peoples more politically star-crossed than the Uighurs of occupied East Turkestan (called "Xinjiang" by the Chinese Communist Party). Their occupiers and tormentors actually do what the nutroots accuses President Bush of doing - creating a "terrorist" threat out of thin air. However, because Bush has had to take those ridiculous slings and arrows over and over again, the Communists get a pass due to intellectual exhaustion and the reverse of guilt-by-association - i.e., if the Communists are accused as Bush has been, it must be as unjust an accusation as those facing Bush. In the case of the Beijing cadres, the charges are not unjust.
One of the victims of the Communist persecution, Uighur-Canadian Huseyin Celil, managed to get a letter out to his family.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on May 23, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Free trade agreements are not responsible for the economic slowdown in America
In the May 22, 2008 issue of The Beacon, the official newsletter of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS), Brian Lee Crowley brings our attention to his commentary “International trade and the US presidential elections.”
Here’s an excerpt:
Barack Obama and Hilary Rodham Clinton made a bit of a fetish of foreigner bashing in the lead-up to the Texas and Ohio primaries, and especially in the Buckeye state. Pennsylvania, with some significant rustbelt problems of its own and a looming primary, was next on the anti-trade rhetoric hit list. And recently Obama got into trouble with this remark, which suggested among other things that anti-trade sentiment is really just a sublimation of other, less politically palatable feelings:
"[I]t's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
It is interesting that on trade Obama and Clinton were largely silent in Texas. Why might that be? Because Texas, one of the largest states in the union has been a huge beneficiary of open trade with Mexico. Anti-NAFTA rhetoric was noticeably absent in the Lone Star state. Surely, though, the two Democratic candidates (John McCain is a vociferous free trader) can’t be saying one thing to Texans and another to Ohioans? They wouldn’t!
You can read the complete commentary here.
As for John McCain, is he really a "vociferous" free trader? Absolutely. According to the website On The Issues, the only caveats McCain would put on free trade involve national security and human rights:
"I don’t believe in walls. I believe in freedom. If I were President, I would negotiate a free trade agreement with almost any country willing to negotiate fairly with us. Only risks to the security of our vital interests or egregious offenses to our most cherished political values should disqualify a nation from entering into a free trade agreement with us."
That's not bad for a government worker.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on May 22, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Al & Mike Show Episode 25 - We Just Can't Give it Up (Free Speech)
Jay Currie (jaycurrie.info-syn.com) joins us for the full hour where we try to talk about other things, but really end up back on the free speech issue. Another brilliant hour.
Listen Now
Subscribe to RSS: Click here for podcast RSS feed.
Subscribe in iTunes for your iPod: Click here (Must have iTunes installed)
Posted by Mike Brock on May 22, 2008 in WS Radio | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Breaking unjust (and stupid) laws
From the New York Times:
"Defying France's strict new antismoking laws, Sean Penn, right, president of the jury at the 61st Cannes Film Festival, lighted a cigarette at a news conference yesterday, Agence France-Presse reported. After a couple of puffs in defiance of rules that banned smoking in enclosed spaces since January, he put the cigarette aside and returned to answering reporters' questions. But a jury member, the Iranian writer and director Marjane Satrapi, prompting laughter, then asked if anyone minded if she smoked "for medical reasons." She lighted a cigarette; Mr. Penn and the French actress Jeanne Balibar joined her."
The Winnipeg Sun reminded me that:
"Penn made news at the 2006 Toronto filmfest when he smoked at a press conference; fest officials earned a stern rebuke from provincial watchdogs and Toronto's Sutton Place Hotel was fined for the infraction. That is unlikely to happen at Cannes, a tobacco-stained jewel in the south of smoke-choked France."
(H/T Jason Kottke)
Posted by Kalim Kassam on May 22, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (30) | TrackBack
Scott Horton interviews Bill Kauffman
(41:06)
Antiwar Radio's Scott Horton interviews Jeffersonian Bill Kauffman, author of Ain’t My America: The Long, Noble History of Antiwar Conservatism and Middle-American Anti-Imperialism.
Kauffman is the best example of what libertarians have in common with the left and the right. A former editor of Reason Magazine, Kauffman writes of himself: [pdf link]
"My wanderings had taken me from the populist flank of liberalism to the agrarian wing of Don’t Tread on Me libertarianism to the peace-and-love left wing of paleoconservatism, which is to say that I had been always on the outside—an outsider even among outsiders—attracted to the spirit of these movements but never really comfortable within them, never willing even to call myself by their names. When asked, I was simply an Independent. A Jeffersonian. An anarchist. A (cheerful!) enemy of the state, a reactionary Friend of the Library, a peace-loving football fan. And here, as Gerry and the Pacemakers once sang, is where I’ll stay."
In an article about Kauffman's recent appearance at the Cato Institute at the American Spectator website, Robert Stacy McCain captures Kauffman:
"Kauffman is a devoted fan of "Little America," which resides in places like his beloved hometown of Batavia, New York -- the kind of people Sen. Barack Obama famously described as bitterly clinging to God and guns. "We don't start the wars," Kauffman says of small-town Americans. "That's the job of the big city-winners who don't need religion or guns -- they have Blackberries. But we and our children fight and die in them, disproportionately."
Posted by Kalim Kassam on May 22, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Gas tax relief crashes into Wall
Lee Harding, Saskatchewan Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, writes...
The bluster Brad Wall used against gas taxes in Opposition is now buried under millions of dollars of revenue for his government. In the sharpest of contrasts, the man who once proposed drastic gas tax relief now argues for the status quo.
Continue reading “Gas tax relief crashes into Wall.”
And let Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall and Prime Minister Stephen Harper know that you want tax relief at the pumps by signing the CTF petition here.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on May 22, 2008 in Canadian Provincial Politics | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
The state had no right to seize children from polygamist sect
The CBC News is reporting that...
An appeals court ruled Thursday that the state of Texas had no right to seize hundreds of children from a polygamist sect last month. More than 460 children were taken from the Yearning for Zion ranch in west Texas after an unidentified caller contacted a domestic abuse line claiming to be a pregnant 16-year-old with a much older husband.
The full story should be posted online here soon.
Here’s my take on this news: Children belong with their parents. The mass seizure of children by the state should always be met with suspicion and concern. That’s not to say that children should be left in abusive situations; it’s only to say that parents should be given the benefit of the doubt by both the media and the public, and the presumption of innocence by law enforcement and the courts.
Furthermore, I have yet to be persuaded against the notion that this group is the focus of state hostility simply because they wanted to be left alone to live their lives and raise their children in what they regard as a devout Christian environment.
Regardless of the outcome, this is a tragic situation for the children involved.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on May 22, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (36) | TrackBack
"They are specifically formed to be used by the Chinese intelligence services"
A former CSIS analyst talks about Communist overseas intimidation and espionage in Canada and the rest of the West.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on May 22, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Good riddance to Brodie
It seems Ian Brodie is out as Prime Minister Harper's Chief of Staff and Guy Giorno is in.
Hallelujah!
Let's face it, Brodie – an academic – was out of his league in the rough and tumble world of federal politics.
And while his "NAFTA-gate" gaffe was what probably did him in, he could just as easily been canned both for his general incompetence and for his disdain for true conservatives.
It's also good to see that his replacement will be Giorno, a former Mike Harris staffer.
Will things change dramatically in the Harper government because Brodie is gone?
Probably not.
But at least, this is a step in the right direction.
Posted by Gerry Nicholls on May 22, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Smoke gets in their eyes
Earth to libertarian reefer reformers:
In March 2007, The Lancet, Britain's leading medical journal, declared cannabis to be more dangerous and addictive than LSD and Ecstasy. About the same time, Professor Colin Blakemore, chief of the Medical Research Council (and in 1997, the moral authority behind The Independent's liberalization campaign) unequivocally reversed his cannabis-friendliness: "The link between cannabis and psychosis is quite clear now; it wasn't 10 years ago."
Read Barbara Kay's entire anti-legalization column, published in today's National Post, here.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on May 22, 2008 in Science | Permalink | Comments (66) | TrackBack
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Five cannabis cases on Legal Ease with Kirk Tousaw
Kirk Tousaw discusses five marijuana cases he is involved with in B.C., including the extradition of Marc Emery and the BC3.
Via POT-TV
Posted by Kalim Kassam on May 21, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
The libertarian case for Obama?
Thoughts from David Friedman:
"Perhaps I am too optimistic about Obama, but I do not think he is going to turn out to be an orthodox liberal. There is a group of intellectuals connected with the University of Chicago who have accepted a good deal of the Chicago school analysis but still want to think of themselves as leftists. They are, as I see it, trying to construct a new version of what "left" means. Examples would be Cass Sunstein and Austan Goolsby, both at Chicago, and Larry Lessig, who used to be there."
and from Nick Bradley:
"After I read the great review of "Nudge" at LvMI this morning, I started doing a little reading on the subject and I stumbled upon this upcoming NYT review of the book.
According to the article, Obama and his economic team oppose outright bans and strict regulations, but instead prefer the "nudging" approach. After reading the article, I've came to the conclusion that Obama is to the right of Clinton on economic issues (opposed to the narrative that he's to the left of her) and pretty close to McCain, with McCain possibly favoring more outright bans and restrictions on economic activity than Obama would -- and I include the environment in that category."
Three assertions underlying these libertarian arguments for Obama are that Obama is actually influenced by and will act upon the insights of the Goolsby school of economics, that this "libertarian paternalistic" state is something preferable to the traditional forms of liberal social democracy, and finally that Obama's foreign policy would be wiser than John McCain's because he would not only act on his commitment to remove most troops from Iraq but he would also not blunder into another intervention in Iran, Darfur, or elsewhere.
I wouldn't recommend that Americans vote for Obama, but he's not the worst of the candidates.
Posted by Kalim Kassam on May 21, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
The truth will (sometimes) set you free
On March 28, 2008, I posted a message advising readers to watch for the exoneration of Toronto City Councillor Rob Ford on domestic assault charges. To all those who took issue with my post, I'd just like to say, "I told you so." Today it happened.
The moral panic over domestic violence has reached epidemic proportions. But some judges are starting to catch on to the abuses a "zero tolerance" policy is prone to.
Not everyone who is falsely accused is so lucky. The zealots who occupy positions of power aren't willing to admit that they might have over-played their hand, or that false allegations for tactical advantage are also a serious problem. In Alberta, Val Campbell (Alberta Justice) works tirelessly to throw more men in jail who don't belong there -- or who don't belong there any more than their partners do. I doubt that she will have anything uselful to say about cases like Rob Ford's at any of her endless rounds of speeches across the province.
Posted by Grant Brown on May 21, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Oil prices closed today at a record US$133 a barrel, but interest in biofuel is not keeping pace
An Angus Reid poll released on May 13, 2008 shows that only 53 per cent of respondents believe "ethanol is a great alternative to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels." Furthermore, a remarkable 44 per cent believe "corn or wheat-based ethanol should be banned, because it is ethically wrong to use food to produce fuel" in light of global food shortages.
Biofuel is extremely unpopular when compared against solar power and wind power, for instance, which enjoy the approval of 96 per cent and 89 per cent of Canadians respectively.
Opposition to the food-into-fuel scheme also comes from political parties as diverse as the Libertarian Party and Green Party.
So why are the Conservatives pushing forward with biofuel subsidies and mandates?
Read “Conservative biofuel plan is losing popularity” here.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on May 21, 2008 in Canadian Conservative Politics | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack
Societal suicide
It has to be said: If Quebeckers are, indeed, so afraid of their province being overrun by immigrants of "other" cultural and religous backgrounds, then they should stop aborting their unborn children at such a ferocious rate. In other words, concerned French Quebeckers should have more babies--an idea being advanced by the ADQ.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on May 21, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (15) | TrackBack
Mark Freiman on the case for censoring hate
Here’s an excerpt from Mark Freiman’s column on free speech in today’s National Post:
Section 13(1) does not apply to hatred in the abstract, but specifically to hatred and contempt directed at members of a particular race, religion, ethnic group or other similar category. This is where Section 13(1) vindicates the Charter right to equality and freedom from discrimination, and why the Taylor decision finds Section 13(1) constitutional despite the fact that it does not provide "truth" as a defence -- an aspect of the law that continues to infuriate its opponents.
Defamation law clearly needs to permit a defence of truth: If specific allegations of misconduct against an individual are true, that person may arguably deserve an extreme reaction of hatred and contempt. But hate propaganda assigns blame for real or imagined misdeeds not to the actions of individuals, but to one or more identifiable groups to which individuals may belong. If individuals "deserve" to be the object of hatred and contempt simply because they are identified as members of one of those groups, discrimination would arguably seem mandatory in order to protect society from such groups.
Read “The case for censoring hate” here.
Here are my thoughts in response to this argument:
Individuals should have the right to discriminate against members of identifiable groups for real or imagined misdeeds. Those individuals who discriminate rationally and effectively will exclude people from their lives who deserve to be the objects of hatred and contempt. Those individuals who discriminate irrationally and ineffectively will exclude people from their lives who could help to make them happy and prosperous. People who discriminate out of ignorance will be unhappy and poor, and people who discriminate out of rational self-interest will be happy and prosperous. It’s a self-correcting problem. Let the best discriminator win.
As for the state, all individuals should be treated as individuals and not as part of some identifiable group with collective traits. The state should not be allowed to discriminate. Why should individuals be allowed to discriminate, but not the state?
Individuals must discriminate peacefully using private property, whereas the state by its nature relies on coercion. Here’s an example: If I own a magazine, it is my private property, and inherent in the notion of private property is the right to exclude. I can discriminate against an identifiable group, let’s say the Irish, by excluding Irish writers or by being critical of Irish culture by excluding counterbalancing facts. That’s my right.
The state, on the other hand, is the guardian of public property and public institutions, for which there is no right of exclusion. Individuals have a right to access public property and public institutions. Since individuals have a right to access public property and public institutions, exclusion or discrimination in this case would require force or the threat of force to exclude the discriminated party.
When individuals discriminate, it involves the exercise of private judgement and private property. When the state discriminates it involves the denial of rights and the use of force. That’s the difference.
How’s my reasoning on this?
Posted by Matthew Johnston on May 21, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (21) | TrackBack
The Long Arm of Lawlessness reaches the US
About three years ago, the Communist Chinese overseas intimidation apparatus was exposed in Canada; the cadres were using their extensive espionage network to track and frequently threatened leading exiled dissidents. Down here, the tactics are a little different (and far more crude), but they do exist nonetheless.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on May 21, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Cartoonist convicted by Brussels court for caricature
No, it's not a depiction of a religious figure. Instead, the offending cartoon was a caricature of businessman George Forrest accompanying a cover article on "The Copper King of Congo" in the anti-globalist monthly magazine MO*. The Belgian court found that the constitutional right to freedom of the press applied to writers but not to "illustrators."
Read an article about the conviction here.
Posted by Kalim Kassam on May 20, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Obama in Oregon. Feeds poor, heals sick... Ron Paul revolution continues.
Obama appeared in Oregon and amassed a crowd of an estimated 75,000 people. The Obama Messiah watch continues.
Obamania has taken over Oregon. Meanwhile the Ron Paul r3VOLution is still quietly planning their largest public event. The Ron Paul grassroots is trying to top that attendance with the Revolution March in Washington D.C on July 12th. Some of the videos advertising the event below the jump. Ron Paul's speech on C-SPAN about his #1 New York Times Bestseller The Revolution: A Manifesto and about the revolution itself gives a clue to the huge level of support he has south of the border in the land of the free and the home of the welfare/warfare state (and no, I'm not talking about Belize).
Posted by Kalim Kassam on May 20, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
And some day pigs will fly
At the end of the night, Master of Ceremonies Caroline Tykoliz offered [Justin] Trudeau a gift, adding: "I hope you look on it some day when you're Prime Minister," a sentiment that was met with a round of applause from the audience. --The Meaford Express
Posted by Terry O'Neill on May 20, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
A report from the Libertarian Party convention
This weekend the Libertarian Party of Canada had their national convention in Edmonton and elected Dennis Young to replace former party leader Jean-Serge Brisson. Matthew Johnston has a report from the convention which includes some quotations from Mr. Young criticizing the Conservative government of Stephen Harper on their policies regarding free speech and drugs:
“The Conservative government has abandoned Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn. If you care about free speech and a free press, you should vote for the Libertarian Party,” said Young. “When we talk about freedom, we actually mean it,” he concluded.
“Marc Emery faces a lifetime in a U.S. prison because the Conservative government refuses to stand by its own drug policies and enforcement practices. Instead, they’re ceding Canadian sovereignty to a politically-motivated drug agency in the U.S. I oppose his extradition, and so should Stephen Harper,” said Young.
Posted by westernstandard on May 20, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (44) | TrackBack
The original bete noire
Re all of this past long weekend's posts on human-rights censors: Look at it this way, Elmasry and his law-student henchmen may be the official complainants in the case against Mark Steyn and Maclean's, but the human-rights action that is slated to start in Vancouver on June 2 is possible only because the B.C. Liberals reversed course once elected and declined to eliminate the censorious section of the Human Rights Act under which the action was filed.
I expand on this--and explore the connection between the section and the late controversialist, Doug Collins--in today's National Post.
Meantime, it should be most interesting to see how Ian Fine of the Canadian Human Rights Commission explains "Jadewarr" etc. when he joins Ezra Levant and MP Keith Martin in a panel discussion on free speech at the national conference and AGM of the Canadian Association of Journalists in Edmonton this coming weekend.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on May 20, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Taiwan's new president
Ma Ying-jeou was sworn in earlier today as Taiwan's new President; his main thrust - less friction with Communist China, yes; reunification, no.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on May 20, 2008 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Monday, May 19, 2008
State Dept. #2 admits ChiCom arms in Afghanistan and Iraq
The arms weren't with the good guys.
Even more frustrating, the Deputy Secretary of State didn't mention this in his opening remarks; it had to be drawn out of him by questioning Senators.
Why?
Posted by D.J. McGuire on May 19, 2008 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Sunday, May 18, 2008
How Mario Dumont could save Canada . . . by destroying it
As the day of the Canadian bureaucracy's laughably ironic tribute to Franz Kafka approaches, the forces of free speech are growing increasingly glum. Already, Mark Steyn and Macleans have been convicted in the court of pessimistic opinion, with little, if any, relief in sight.
However, there is, IMHO, one person who could bring this entire charade to a screeching halt, if only he knew (1) that he could do it, and (2) how much it is in his interest to do it. That person is Mario Dumont.
Quebec's opposition leader is not having his best year, but he is still in a position to radically change the entire nature of this debacle. For one, he still has 41 MNA's in Quebec City. Secondly, his support for Jeff Fillion (on which he was practically alone in Quebec politics) gives him the free-speech credentials he would need for what I am about to suggest. Finally, given what has been happening to him and his party recently, he doesn't have much to lose.
So, what dramatic statement could he make that could reshape the entire human rights tribunal fiasco? I was figuring something like this: threatening to introduce legislation for a referendum on Quebec independence the moment Steyn, Levant, Macleans, or anyone else exercising free speech is convicted by any tribunal.
What makes this actually powerful (as opposed to useless grandstanding) is the current state of politics in Quebec. As soon as Dumont were to make this statement, the PQ would have to choose between supporting him or watching half its vote go permanently to the ADQ. I'm guessing they'll take the former - meaning the human rights commissions will have to add "potentially killing Canada" to the already long list of damaging consequences from going after Steyn, Levant, Macleans, etc., especially if - as I suspect - the new, right-wing justification for separation puts the "Yes" side back in front (at least on the condition that convictions are handed down) for the first time in a dozen years. The entire episode would take on a new dimension, and it would be front-page news every single day for weeks (if not months).
Furthermore, odds are Premier Jean Charest, in a desperate attempt to deflect this, will himself be compelled to come to the defense of free speech and in opposition to any conviction. He might even try to burnish his credentials on this by calling for an end to Quebec's human rights tribunal. Either way, the entire Quebec political establishment would end up on the side of freedom (whether it wants to be there or not). This would force federal politicians to take a stand, or risk the wrath of la belle province.
Naturally, the usual suspects will flip out, but so long as they include the Muslim muzzlers who are going after Steyn, Levant, and Macleans, it will be spring 2007 for Dumont all over again.
More to the point, the lefties who are so desperate to silence the Canadian right will have to ask themselves if its worth bringing Canada itself (or their version of bilingual, multicultural Canada) to an end.
For decades, the left has been using the Quebec separatist threat to hold Canada hostage for bigger and more oppressive government. The question is: will the right be willing to do the same for free speech? Is it ready to destroy Canada in order to save it?
Or is this just easier for me to consider because I'm an American?
Posted by D.J. McGuire on May 18, 2008 in Canadian Conservative Politics, Canadian Politics, Canadian Provincial Politics, Current Affairs, Media, Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
The Audacity of Hype sees no evil
Barack Obama tells a New York Times columnist that Hamas and Hezbollah have "legitimate claims."
Be afraid; be very afraid.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on May 18, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
When Will There Be Canadian Refugees?
Picking up on what Terry and others have been talking about, I would like to suggest that the persecution of Mark Steyn, Maclean's, Ezra Levant, this magazine, and others raises a serious question: how long will it be before we see the first Canadian attempt to seek refuge from tyranny abroad?
The Convention on the Status of Refugees defines one as follows:
A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to
After all - what is the endgame of all of this? For all of the talk from the left that the proceedings of human rights tribunals and commissions are not criminal, I would put it to you that - in the end - that's a distinction without a difference. These bodies have the power to order punishments and, if you do not submit to them and cannot find relief under Canadian law, they have the power to seize your property or to put you in prison. The rest is mere technicality.
What we are talking about here is classic persecution. If you express opinions which the state disapproves of then, they will order you to apologize or pay for them. It is hard to imagine a more fundamentally illiberal institution or practise.
As I've noted before, I think that those who are hoping for relief from other courts in this land are deluding themselves. The Chief Justice herself has openly endorsed judicial activism - saying that Judges should not be bound by written law. Maclean's - and others - will find no relief there.
Rick looks back to the "Accurate News and Information" case, but what he forgets is that it - and everything else in this country - has been changed by the Charter. This court has no conception of natural law or fundamental rights - they see everything through the lens of liberalism, which holds that group and minority rights are absolutely the most important, including the rights of groups and minorities not to be offended in any way, shape, or form.
The only way that anyone is ever going to get a fair court to pass judgement on this law is if we can get it before a fair court - perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court. The way to do that is for some brave soul, when confronted by the commissars of human rights, to drive to the nearest border crossing and attempt to claim political asylum in the United States - a move which would almost certainly eventually bring the matter before the highest courts in the land.
Indeed, what people fail to understand is how far down this road we are already headed. Mark Steyn is right when he says that his career in this country is over. Once he and Maclean's are convicted, no mainstream publication here will publish him, for fear of being dragged before a kangaroo court. And they won't publish anyone like him, either. And, if they do, the same sort of activists will repeat the process, until everyone gets the message.
It's not Sharia - it's leftist totalitarianism, which cannot tolerate the expression of opinion contrary to its assumptions. Once they get Steyn and others, they'll keep going and going and going.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on May 18, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (38) | TrackBack
Wrongs from rights tribunal
Good friends of mine--both of whom are otherwise well-informed people--told me last night they had not heard about the looming B.C. Human Rights Tribunal hearing in Vancouver into the complaint against Mark Steyn and Maclean's.
But, as the June 2 start of the week-long hearing edges closer, I'm hoping that increased publicity will draw people's attention to the important free-speech issues at stake.
Rick Hiebert has blogged on the issue, below. Also today, Coquitlam-area readers will see the published result of my challenge of former chief commissioner Mary Woo Sims to debate the issue with me in our regular column in the Tri-City News.
Further down the road, the Fraser Institute is planning a one-two punch that should open a few eyes, at least in B.C. Steyn himself will speak at one of the Institute's pricey "Illuminismo" events on May 26. The talk is scheduled to be about "the war on terror," but I'm guessing that the audience will also get an earful about the kangaroo court that Steyn will be facing the following week.
Then, on May 27, Western Standard founder Ezra Levant will be speaking at an Institute-sponsored "policy briefing" luncheon about free speech and his troubles with human-rights commissions.
Two people we have yet to hear from, though, are Premier Gordon Campbell and Attorney-General Wally Oppal. They could put an end to this travesty in a minute by amending the Human Rights Act to eliminate the censorious section under which Maclean's has been dragged to the Tribunal. So, what do you say, Messrs. Campbell and Oppal?
Posted by Terry O'Neill on May 18, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack