I have heard no good argument in favour of this measure. There are other ways of confirming identity, and their are other ways to accommodate the very few new Canadians with this particular religious conviction. This move is based neither in principle nor in necessity. The Tories have an axe to grind, and they don’t care if they chip away at our freedom of religion.

“J’en appelle aujourd’hui à une désobéissance civile”, déclare-t-il à France 24. “Je voudrais dire aux femmes de ne pas avoir peur de sortir voilée intégralement. En payant leurs contraventions, je neutralise la loi. Je veux montrer qu’elle ne fonctionne pas, que c’est un échec pour les acteurs politiques qui l’ont promulguée.”

— Rachid Nekkaz, 38 years old, real-estate businessman in Paris.

As far as I am concerned, family reunification should be the top priority over and above any social engineering to increase the Canadian workforce. Strong families breed responsible people. People who want to unite their relatives demonstrate family values that I think are more honorable than any other. I would rather live among such people than take a gamble with over-educated unmarried foreigners.

Be that as it may, I found the news of Daniel Dion’s murder to be quite disturbing but probably not in the way that most folks would. The first things that stood out to me are:
1) he was a businessman
2) he was peddling “eco-bags”
3) his “eco-bags” were manufactured by Mexican prison inmates.
Daniel Dion comes across to me as an opportunist of what is essentially slave labor.

[Coincidentally, I got a free "eco-bag" as a sales pitch delivered to me from one of my potential suppliers the next day at work. I did not need the bag and I did not need the business from that supplier.]

I have a hard time believing this was a simple robbery. It is useless to blame the Mexican legal system for brushing Dion’s execution under the rug because that is what the Mexicans do. Everybody knows that. Daniel Dion should have known where he was going and the risks he took.

I do not mean to be callous. I sincerely want to offer a lesson for the future: Do not do business with nefarious folks. That is what Canadians should learn from this tragedy — a tragedy that includes the misfortune of all the incarcerated Mexicans who are being used.

But in reality there is little daylight between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party when it comes to multiculturalism policy. Both parties even use the same metaphor.

Conservatives recognize the “regional, cultural and socio-economic diversity of Canada” and are committed to “embracing our differences and respecting our traditions, yet honoring a concept of Canada as the greater sum of strong parts.”

For their part, Liberals “believe that Canada is much more than the sum of its parts, and that we are stronger not despite our differences, but because of them.”

So, which party believes in multiculturalism?

The answer is both.

Similar laws are pending in Belgium, Spain and some Italian municipalities.

Is this the way the wind is beginning to blow in Western Societies? I’m both encouraged and dismayed if this is true. Not specifically about the veils, but rather by the attitudes behind it.

As far as being encouraged goes, I’m pleased to see countries and societies standing up for their own way of life and culture and protecting it from being trampled over by the stampede of Cultural (Reasonable) Accommodation.  I’ve previously discussed this issue in other aspects here, and here.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The reason why so many people want to come to Canada is because it was such a wonderful, stable, and respectful country. We had clear values and respect for one another’s differences. What brought us to that status was a legacy inherited from Britain and France of a predominately Christian philosophy and a structured but flexible legal system based on basic Christian values.

Just as Quebec and France and other countries have been trying to do, I agree that if faced with protecting my culture (which is what has made Canada for example, a wonderful place to live and why people want to come here) that there should be conditions upon migrating to my country.

Foremost, I want to ensure that migrants understand that when they come to Canada, it is to pursue a better life in a Canadian manner, not to seek to rebuild the country in an image of how they would have rather seen their country of origin under those cultural rules.

Increasingly, other countries are saying ‘We are not some place to be considered a tolerant blank-slate-state that you can come in and change to suit your own beliefs’.

I say that there is nothing wrong with this.

I appreciate the differences that other cultures and individuals bring with them, but I recognize that not all of it can, or should be tolerated in Canada. (see Sharia Law, Honor “Crimes”,  etc). Those things are not Canadian and have no place in Canadian Society or Culture. Time and again, I’ve seen other countries stomp on those who say “In my country…” with an immediate and sometimes hostile “You are not in your country!”.

Why are we in Western Societies so afraid to do the same? Is this some form of White Guilt/Wealth Guilt/Survivor Guilt etc? Are we so ashamed of our own cultures and ways of life that we are unwilling as citizens to stand up and defend it?

And why should I be dismayed by this? Frankly, I’m dismayed that there is only a small handful of countries getting on board with protecting themselves and their own ways of life and culture from outside influences.

Personally, I’m willing to say “This is my country and my way of life and my home. If you choose to come to live in my house, there are different rules you’ll have to live by. If that’s unacceptable to you, then I respectfully suggest you find someplace else more to your liking.”

And there’s nothing wrong with that.

Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal MP – it’s the bloody patriarchy, stupid!

There is a huge misconception that these crimes occur because of certain religious beliefs. There is no religion that condones the murder of women. It’s the feudal/patriarchal culture of male dominance and control that’s the culprit.

Dr. Amin Muhammad, Professor of Psychiatry at Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador – it’s not just Islam, stupid!

While many recent cases in Western society involve Muslims, Dr. Muhammad said honour killings have also been committed in the name of Hinduism, Sikhism and Christianity.

To which I say: While it may be true that “honour killings have also been committed in the name of Hinduism, Sikhism and Christianity,” the numbers pale in comparison to the thousands of females murdered each year around the world in the name of Islam for the sake of family honour.

United Nations Population Fund:

Throughout the world, perhaps as many as 5,000 women and girls a year are murdered by members of their own families, many of them for the “dishonour” of having been raped, often as not by a member of their own extended family.

It is dishonest at best to survey the numbers of honour murders committed by Muslims, along with the allowances for honour murder within the legal structures of Islamic nations, such as Syria, Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan, which can be seen as a tacit endorsement of the practice, and then suggest equivalency among faiths when a handful of honour murders are committed by members of other faiths. Honour murder is a much greater problem for Islam than it is for other faiths and it is ludicrous to even suggest otherwise.

As for endorsement within religious texts, Dosanjh and Muhammed are correct that no religion condones honour murder per se, but they should have been more careful to point out the caveats under Islam that have led to the widespread acceptance of honour murder within Islamic tradition. As an example, Christianity, the faith I know best, provides no justification whatsoever to murder one’s own children or one’s wife, whereas the Qur’an Sura 18 arguably allows for the killing of children not even your own as long as you’ve accurately determined a child will grow up as a non-believer. (How that determination is made, I have no clue.)

Does honour murder occur in other faiths? Yes. Under which faith is it most prevalent, by far? Islam. Which nations tacitly endorse the practice through caveats of law? Islamic nations. That’s the point that must be accepted before reform can be realized, and it’s the critical point that Dosanjh and others prefer to gloss over to our collective detriment.

I credit Dosanjh in one respect, though; his reference to the role political correctness in shaping the response to honour murder.

… political correctness prevents us from demanding that the cultural norms that justify such heinous practices as honour killings have no place anywhere in the world. We must never be too sensitive to call a spade a spade.

As if on cue, some on the pro-dhimmi side are already suggesting Canadian judges should take “cultural practices,” such as honour killing, into consideration out of respect for (I say genuflection at the altar of) multiculturalism. Scaramouche, via Mark Steyn:

John Oakley is seriously entertaining the question of whether Canadian judges should give those who commit “honour” killings a break because they have different “cultural practices” and may not be aware of our norms and laws; defence attorney Lawrence Ben-Eliezer thinks judges should  take these differences into consideration because we have “multiculturalism”.

Canadians, of course, are already aware of what “taking these differences into consideration” means: preferential treatment of en vogue “victim” groups of the political left. What Canadians are less aware of, in my opinion, is the tangible threat posed to Western society by ardent multiculturalism, our Achilles heel.

Mr. Siddiqui was not impressed by the arguments mounted against the head-to-toe body bag—for example, the notion that it is a “symbol of oppression”:

“Let’s assume that [the niqab] is,” [Haroon Siddiqui] wrote. “Whose business is it to end the practice—that of the state?”

That’s pretty cute coming from a guy who, during this magazine’s long battle with Canada’s “human rights” commissions, argued at length that it was most certainly the business of the state to end the practice of Maclean’s carrying Islamophobic Steyn columns. If the state can regulate what you write and say and think and even (as in the lesbian heckler case at the British Columbia Tribunal) what you quip, it can most certainly regulate what you wear. In Canada, it would be quicker to list what isn’t the business of the state. “The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation,” said Pierre Trudeau, unless, of course, you’re tucked up with a nice mug of cocoa reading an Islamophobic edition of Maclean’s. It was a classic bit of Trudeaupian legerdemain: if you’re allowed to roger anything that moves, or doesn’t, according to taste, you won’t notice all the other parts of your life the state has a place in. In Canada, it’s the state’s business when you get your hip operation, not yours: if the state has jurisdiction over your hip, why shouldn’t it also have jurisdiction over which garments the hip can be sheathed in? In Canada, a resident alien is not permitted to own a bookstore, on grounds of cultural protection. If “cultural protection” can prohibit a homosexual from San Francisco opening up a gay bookstore in Vancouver, why can’t it also extend to a Muslim woman’s dress?

And Quebec is Canada without even the residual restraints of the Britannic inheritance. In the interests of la collectivité, the province regulates not only the public usage of language but the very size of lettering in which your words can be displayed. If the state has power to set a maximum font on the ladies’ room door, why can’t it also set a limit on the yards of cloth you have to hoist up once you get in there?

Emphasized portions mine. Do read it all.

We urge the government to expand those efforts by widening which family members can apply and speeding up the unification of adopted orphans with their new families in Canada.

I think they are on the right track.

As far as I am concerned, we should let anybody come in to Canada. Jason Kenney is wrong:

“Massive resettlement is not a solution to natural disaster. The solution is reconstruction, and we’re focused and dedicated to that,” Mr. Kenney said.

Kenney said other stuff too. He said that the government of Haiti would not appreciate it if all Haitians were permitted entry into Canada. Who cares what the Haitian government appreciates?? I certainly do not. As far as I am concerned, massive resettlement is a solution to this natural disaster.

Lorrie Goldstein posted his preferences and bias this morning:

There needs to be a limit on Canadian compassion towards Haiti.
—SNIP—
We cannot solve every global catastrophe by throwing open our doors to the victims.

I do not see why not. The vast majority of Canadian land is empty. If all of the global warming nonsense turns out to be true, well, more of the barren Canadian land will become habitable at affordable rates and Canadians will solve every global catastrophe by throwing open the doors. We will not be able to afford not to do so.

Also, the choice to fund reconstruction assumes that the purpose behind all of this foreign aid is to actually help the lowly desparate foreigners and not the governments nor the government cronies. That is a huge assumption and I am not sure what the motives of people like Jason Kenney truly are. He may have other goals to serve with his policy-making tasks. Who knows?

The problem with throwing money at reconstruction is that the question of whether reconstruction is even possible — that is, to suit the inhabitants — is never honestly addressed. Further, any discussion of the cost compared to resettlement is stifled too. Some people in Haiti may actually want to leave. Thus, the money sent to reconstruct the earthquake-prone land may be better spent. It is not like Canada is such a horrible place to live.

As far as I am concerned, if a reconstruction of Haiti is physically possible, then Haitians should do it themselves. They can move to Canada, save up some coin and go back to their homeland to reconstrct whatever they want. That is how honest compassionate reconstruction should be done.

The political culture is such that we are subjects of a massive state apparatus and comforted with infinite means to entertain ourselves, but why such little appreciation for the responsibilities that come with citizenship? with looking out for your own self-interest, especially in the community where you live? taking pride in your own capacity for self-governance?

Such prison policy is bearing fruit south of the border and it is rotten! … Reform is needed, and as the New York Times reports, it’s becoming a bipartisan issue.

I watched Gran Torino for the first time last night. Great movie!

There is a scene in Gran Torino where Clint Eastwood’s character, Walt, is asked why he didn’t call the police instead of confronting a gang outside his house. Walt’s response, “Well you know, I prayed for them to come but nobody answered. … when things happen quickly like that, you have to react.”

When faced with any individual or social “problem,” be it crime, the need for some agent of welfare, or even some public works project or another, we need to consider how civil society engenders a much larger definition than Big Government prefers to accommodate. Big Government is not the natural result of civil society, rather, Big Government is what Max Weber called an “iron cage,” and we require a responsible citizenry to moderate its role in civil society.

Consider what John von Heyking writes in his insightful review of “It’s the Regime, Stupid! A Report From the Cowboy West on Why Stephen Harper Matters:”

And so Canadians have come to view their sovereign as the agent of “gift giving,” … This decadent regime has been rendered possible by a decadent Christian culture that has forgotten the distinction between compassion, which benefits bureaucrats (because the purpose of compassion is to feel good about oneself), and caritas, for which the language of costs and benefits are irrelevant (because the purpose of caritas is love for another). Subjects of the modern regime need to balance their interest-calculation with some pride, which Cooper describes as a “something that you hold on to without qualification as to whether it is in your interest to do so – otherwise there would be no ‘you’ to have an interest.” …

In other words, too many take Big Government to be the default solution to whatever ails them. And yet, there is no virtue, no individual dignity to be gained, in not taking responsibility for your own life.

I won’t get into all the arguments for allowing Ms. James to remain in Canada (I previously wrote about her case here), but for those of you who have missed this story, Pte. Smith was serving at Fort Collins.  A lesbian, she enlisted via the offensive and illiberal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) policy, and was outed by her fellow soldiers.  Consequently, her life was threatened.

Under DADT, a soldier who is outed is to be granted a discharge.  The U.S. army, needing more bodies for their various wars, decided that could wait until after her tour… after she was shipped to Afghanistan to serve with people who wanted her dead.

Until the United States repeals this sexuality-based caste system, Canada should welcome any deserters who were forced to flee after being outed.  In the meantime, I’m happy Ms. James is safe in my hometown.  I’m proud that my country is protecting her.  It is now up to the Refugee Board to stand up against injustice.

By the way, Kyle at Vogue Republic presents a good argument against DADT here.

I have never been to Cuba and I have never wanted to go precisely because of their evil communist government. Everybody who spends their money in Cuba is subsidiizing the evil human rights abuses that occur there. Shame on you all.

The 62-page guidebook, years in the making, replaces the “anemic, slim, stripped-down” version crafted by the Liberals in 1997 with a “more substantial treatment of Canadian history and civics,” said Rudyard Griffiths, co-founder of the Dominion Institute and among those consulted in the creation of the document.

Having not read the document, I cannot comment on the contents.  However, I fully support the principle.  It is demeaning to assume that new citizens can’t be expected to digest a robust document.  It is unfair to fail to provide them with an exhaustive account of the history and nature of Canada.  A document that demonstrates a healthy respect for the individual and the nation is the best tool we can offer our new Canadians as they build their lives in Canada.

Nonetheless, there is great room for impropriety in this document.  As a supporter of relatively open immigration (and fully supporting being open to refugees), but an opponent of institutionalized multiculturalism and grotesque patriotism (that which borders on, or becomes, nationalism), I am, naturally, concerned that this sort of document will be used to enforce a particular vision of Canada.

Any document we give to immigrants must outline what it has meant to be Canadian, but it could be awfully difficult to outline what it means to be Canadian.  What we need to teach new Canadians is that in liberal society, the individual is paramount; the individual is more important than the nation, than parliament, than the collective, than any particular ethnic group – the individual is more important than any concept or group that looks to subvert one’s personal autonomy.

But still we are left with the question, of what significance is it to be Canadian?  What is the essence of ‘Canadianism’?  Do we look to our founding, to the British North America Act, the last spike, D’Arcy McGee and the like?  Does it take into account the fur trade, the National Policy or the Quiet Revolution?  Does it reflect our newest ‘traditional’ values and institutions: universal health care, ‘peacekeeping’, or a charter that is younger than I?

Geez, is it now based in pop culture?  Does being Canadian mean Tim Hortons, Alexander Keith’s and This Hour Has 22 Minutes?

I submit that we are a nation without a sufficient identity.  Perversely, I think it is our pre-occupation with having, or obtaining, an identity that fosters this deficiency.  The roots of Canada – the societies of Britain and France, the aboriginals – are worth cherishing.  The incarnation and growth of this nation in the context of our southern neighbour, rather than in contrast to her, warrants pride.  The accomplishments of this young nation, so many of which achieved free from anxiety about a ‘national identity’, should have been enough to sustain us.

Is it our collective neurosis that defines us?  Is that the insight that we owe new Canadians?

First, I hear that Unsteady Eddy managed a 77% leadership approval tonight in Alberta, and that many APCs who are loyal to Stelmach believe that this puts the wind at their backs. Well, we here in Ontario made a similar mistake not so long ago too, and my warning to my Alberta cousins is that if you don’t correct the leadership problem, the electorate has a way of doing it for you!

Next, I won’t go into details here for obvious reasons except to say that my poor Hyundai Accent was hit on the driver’s side yesterday by someone who was running late to take a relative to get an H1N1 shot — now I know there’s been some sniping from both sides over the shot recently, but as at least one victim of the panic caused by this disease, I strongly urge everyone to calm down! Nothing circumvents road safety and it’s better to arrive late to an appointment than not at all!

On the bright side, the Accent protected me extremely well, and as much as I already loved my little Korean car, I’m extremely amazed by it now and highly endorse it to everyone out there. On the not-so-bright side, since yesterday I’ve witnessed about 20 separate cars in Waterloo region driving with downright criminal insanity (and I have passenger witnesses for these too!) — a car that almost clipped over a motorcycle in order to do a sharp 10 degree turn into the lane three spaces over; another bozo leaving the local Costco by pulling up to the right turn-only lane and then clipping a van in order to drive straight through into the parking lot across the way; and, the worst was my girlfriend and I seeing a car literally staring at us across the Westmount and University intersection tonight, attempting to turn righ (yes, it was driving in the wrong direction and would have to cut across the three eastbound lanes to do so). Perhaps it’s time to review just how flexible our licensing system is, given the responsibility of operating such a dangerous machine.

At least I end this week on a happy note, well…other than a surprise run-in to Christian Conservative today. Anyway, the Saskatchwan Roughriders, breaking a 33-year drought, become the CFL’s Western Division’s first place, regular season team this year. Congrats to the green Riders for a wonderful season, and a well-earned by next week. Being from Hamilton, and having a father who is a die-hard tabby fan, I can only hope that the Tiger Cats get their home field advantage for the next week tomorrow, and to see them in the Grey Cup this year.

… American democracy has always been a hurly-burly. More important, a lot of the complaints about incivility today are really complaints from the people in power or their supporters in the media, aimed at the folks who won’t shut up and get with their program.

And there’s something distinctly undemocratic about that.

The civility caterwaulers claim that Obama’s opponents are trying to “delegitimize” the president, often suggesting that such efforts are racist. But what some see as delegitimization, others see as criticism. What strikes me as truly uncivil is the effort to demonize critics of the president with racial bullying.

In fact, I think Obama really does have a problem with dissent. In August he said: “I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way. . . . I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.”

On health care he’s been saying the time for debating his plan is over, even though the president didn’t even have a plan to debate.

Now his White House is targeting Fox News and urging other news outlets to ostracize it. Does any serious person in America believe that if Fox News were supportive of the president’s agenda, this White House would be bemoaning the network’s lack of objectivity?

Democracy is about disagreement, arguments. Citizenship in America requires speaking your mind. Indeed, it’s worth recalling that the freedom of the press enshrined in the First Amendment always envisioned a partisan press. “Objective” journalism is a 20th-century confabulation, as alien to the Founders’ vision as transporter beams and time travel.

Civility came to mean politeness in the 16th century; before that it meant being a citizen. It seems to me that authentic civility requires some incivility.

Turning back to the interview with Conor Friedersdorf from the other thread, the following is an excerpt that raises significant questions.

Unfortunately, there is also a lot of dreck that harms public discourse. I’d never want to be the arbiter drawing a definitive boundary between folks who add to the conversation and those who take away from it. That line is impossible for anyone to consistently and reliably discern. But it is possible to identify folks whose transgressions are so frequent, blatant and influential that one must either oppose them or stay silent as they corrode our polity’s primary means of testing ideas and deciding among them. I think it is important that this opposition is grounded in substantive arguments, that it avoids ad hominem attacks, that it is rigorous, and that it is intellectually honest.

As I argue in the other thread, ad hominem argument, be it rude or funny, is often the only way to check intellectual dishonesty at the door. Often it is necessary to take a swipe at people who are unwilling to face the truth. A well placed insult forces them to challenge why what you are calling them isn’t true, to make a come back, the result being that they either face the truth and the conversation continues, no doubt robustly, or they leave—good riddance. It is individuals of genuine civility who can take a hit and keep on coming; re: Juan Williams.

I’m not arguing that conservatives benefit from “echo chambers.” Hardly! I’m making the point that in any “political discourse” there are likely to be intellectual swindlers, however polite and well-intentioned, that want to narrow the choices we face into one way, THEIR way, whatever the cost. Conservatives are seeking to provide people with “A Choice, Not An Echo” and doing so will often infuriate their opponents (Many thanks, once again, to Kathy Shaidle for the link.), as we see now with the current White House attacks on Fox news.

To engage in democratic politics, it is best if one comes with some principles, broad shoulders, a quick wit, and the capacity to laugh at oneself.

I’m talking about Pte. Bethany Smith, now known as Skylar James.  Ms. James, gainfully employed in Ottawa, is a lesbian who willing joined the U.S. Army, adhering to the ludicrous Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  Sadly, her fellow soldiers felt no such compunction, and outed her.  She has since been subjected to harassment and death threats.

And, considering what happened to Barry Winchell, I’d be wary of being dismissive of those threats.

Ms. James played by the rules.  She joined the army, “didn’t tell”, and planned on serving her country.  Unfortunately, her country failed her.  The Army, according to policy (and basic human decency), owes her a discharge.  Her superiors said they’ll take care of the paperwork after she returns from her tour… after she is shipped to Afghanistan to serve with people who, it is reasonable to believe, might seek her death.

But for now, she is in Canada.

It is bad enough that the U.S. Army has a de facto discriminatory policy.  It is bad enough that they treat homosexuals as lesser citizens, whose service to country is devalued.  Beyond all that, they actively and tacitly support the subjugation and malicious imperilment of these people.  They need to address this matter and, finally, allow homosexuals to be open about their sexuality while serving their country.

Until they do, it is Canada’s duty to protect those whose worth the United States has callously discarded.

(Note:  This post has been edited to correct an error in Ms. James’ name.)

Unfortunately, The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, like The Supreme Court of Canada, is now a court with the insidious pretence that its justices are not political actors, be they now the wiser appointed and benign overlords of all the realm. As the website of the court now, boldly, proclaims:

Courts are the final arbiter between the citizen and the state, and are therefore a fundamental pillar of the constitution.

The Supreme Court has been established to achieve a complete separation between the United Kingdom’s senior Judges and the Upper House of Parliament, emphasising the independence of the Law Lords and increasing the transparency between Parliament and the courts.

In August 2009 the Justices moved out of the House of Lords (where they sat as the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords) into their own building on the opposite side of Parliament Square. They will sit for the first time as a Supreme Court in October 2009.

The impact of Supreme Court decisions will extend far beyond the parties involved in any given case, shaping our society, and directly affecting our everyday lives.

For instance, in their previous role as the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, the Justices gave landmark rulings on the legality of the Hunting Act 2004 under European law, and whether or not a schoolgirl could be prevented from wearing traditional cultural dress.

Since Magna Carta, the High Court of Parliament, as it were, has been—and let us hope it remains—the final arbiter between the “citizen” and the state. Consider that a “citizen” is a “citizen” explicitly because he is the “subject” of a State. And “subjects,” being subjects of limited means in comparison to the state, can readily be subjected to the injustices, intentional or not, of that state.

What The United Kingdom has lost is far greater than any advance for federalism would have warranted. It has lost the explicit recognition—at the very top, anyway—that adjudicating the law is always part and parcel of legislating the law.

It was for this reason that John Locke held the Legislative branch of government to be supreme over all others. What we call Parliament was a necessary public conversation between the Executive and those who write the law as well as interpret the law. Take one aspect out of the mix and you will get power run amuck; so much for the balancing act that a separation of powers doctrine is meant to provide.

But, anymore, few learned men consider reading Locke a worthy endeavour. For whatever reason—maybe the American revolution and the cultural dominance of The United States—Montesquieu’s formulation of Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government wins wider popular recognition; those who understand the consequences of putting his formulation into practice a much smaller constituency.

It was to temper “legislating from the bench” that, for centuries, by the Law Lords sitting in the Upper Chamber of Parliament, the justice system of The United Kingdom tipped its hat toward Parliament. Being part of Parliament, the fact that the decisions of the Law Lords carried political consequence, that the adjudication of justice can, indeed, be effected by the idiosyncratic disposition and perspective of the adjudicators was lost on no one. The final court of appeal avoided even the appearance of being oracular.

New Labour seems to prefer change for the sake of change, especially when trying to win respectability for its love of big government. This is certainly not the first time it has looked across the pond and adopted the worst, the intellectually laziest, that Canada has to offer; be it the incoherent cult of “multiculturalism,” or, now, the larger, the more significant evolutions of our own constitutional history.

It’s about as good as one might expect in The Multicultural Utopia, as Mark Steyn puts it, where the most grievous evil is to rationalize a significant problem with a particular patch or thread in the great multicultural fabric known as Canada.  Suggesting that the values of another culture have no place in Canada is worse than calling the premeditated murder of four Muslim women by their very own family for their “disgusting lifestyles” in Canada an honour killing.

As to why this is the case, we have Kingston Police Chief Stephen Tanner:

“In our Canadian society, we value the cultural values of everyone who makes up this great country,” Tanner said. “These individuals (the dead women) had the freedom and rights of expression of all Canadians. Whether that was a part of a motive within the family based on one of the girls or more of the girls behaviour is open to speculation.” (Emphasis added.)

To which I offer, No, sir, Canadians do not and should not value the cultural values of everyone who makes up this great nation.

Canadians categorically reject the cultural values that underpin this massacre of innocent Muslim women.  Canadians reject the principles of shari’a law.  Canadians denounce Islamic rule.  Canadians abhor misogyny.  Canadians flatly and emphatically reject shari’a's provisions for justifiable killing.  Canadians reject the cultural value of honour killing, which is prevalent in Muslim cultures because it is arguably justifiable within Islam.

Does this mean we reject all Muslims?  Certainly not.  But Muslims who insist on exercising their rights under shari’a or living by that law??–Yes, we reject you because we reject that aspect of your culture.  Shari’a is illegitimate in this land.  It has no place here.  If you want to continue on that path then kindly get out and make your home in a place where shari’a is in full swing or be prepared to face our rule of law.

To be clear, Canadians value cultural values that do not usurp our rule of law.  The values of other cultures that reflect the spirit and principle of our values and laws, we accept and are glad to include.  Those that do not, we reject.  Immigrants who make their home here have a choice: leave their anti-Canadian cultural values behind and assume our values or face the Canadian rule of law, which is based on Canadian values.  To paraphrase Charles Napier, you build your funeral pyres and we’ll build a gallows.  In this case, you kill your daughters to preserve some sort of religious honour and we’ll lock you in prison for what bleeding-heart liberals consider a lifetime.  I prefer a gallows myself but that’s beside the point.

There is no such thing as an innocuous value.  Imported cultural values are either strengthening or weakening Canadian values.  We dare not include them all. It is ours to judge, and judge we must.  We are all-inclusive (read non-judgmental, tolerant, uncritical) to our own peril.  There can be no middle ground as it relates to shari’a and honour killings or the like.

It’s time Canadians and the media start saying so.  It’s time to clearly define what is and is not Canadian.  It is time for the demarcation of a Canadian identity.

What a fantastic question! And what an amazing differentiation!

[h/t to cynical joe at Unambiguously Ambidextrous]

Let me first describe the problem I have with Multicultural. Straight up? It’s a farce. It’s totally impractical, rife with logistical and social nightmares, and prone to enormous bounds of personal interpretation. To me, being a multicultural society implies that we are willing to incorporate other “cultures” into our existing culture, thus changing what the Canadian Culture is (or was?).

Personally, I don’t think that’s a good idea. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The reason why so many people want to come to Canada is because it was such a wonderful, stable, and respectful country. We had clear values and respect for one another’s differences. What brought us to that status was a legacy inherited from Britain and France of a predominately Christian philosophy and a structured but flexible legal system based on basic Christian values.

That comes under attack when we seek to ‘incorporate’ other cultures (which may or may not be compatible) into our existing culture. We do not seek to peacefully co-exist under Multiculturalism. We seek to blend. That will become a dog’s breakfast if we don’t stop it. More and more people are beginning to see that.

The virtue of a Multiethnic philosophy is that there is no blending. There is no impetus to incorporate, or to change, or to otherwise alter what makes Canada…well…Canada! By it’s name, it identifies us as being a society composed of multiple ethnic people as opposed to a society based on multiple cultures.

A Multiethnic philosophy allows for the toleration and acceptance of what makes us different, and because of those differences, our society is enhanced. We can appreciate and participate in the wonderous varieties of the cultures of these ethnic groups, without being beholden to them. The difference being that we would not be compelled to change the basic fundamentals of our society in order to incorporate possibly incompatible beliefs and/or justice systems. Canada can remain Canada, and we can maintain the best of all things in this country and of it’s people, while leaving behind that which we (or others) came here to escape.

The alternative, is to continue the cultural collisions and accidents, and in attempting to incorporate, completely homogenize what Canada was and could have been, into a bland, barren and intolerant landscape where the dream of “infinite possibility in infinite diversity” was cast aside in favor of accomodation.

Mark Peters did a good overview of the serious subject that is covered but where the movie towers over other movies that attempt to tackle complex social issues is that is isn’t preachy but is actually entertaining as well. Sometimes such movies will avoid the former but completely fall flat with the latter but with “Taken” leaves you exiting the theatre thinking that you actually got your money’s worth for a night out while also instilling the scary realities in you that can only come from the dark world of international prostitution slave rings. Incidentally (and I say this at risk of being dragged before a thought police farce perhaps), the movie leaves a subtle but appropriate reference to who is the major driver behind the dehumanization of the poor young women who are thrust into this hell near the end of the film, referring to an otherwise minor character as “sheik”. Rock the cashbar indeed!

Category 1: Leadership
Grade: D-

If there was one crucial area that Mr. Bush needed to get together if all the others were to come into place, it had to be leadership. On this front, President Bush often faltered. Certainly, he had moments of great eloquence and really looked the part of the most politically powerful man on Earth, but these sadly were the exceptions to the rule, wherein Mr. Bush opted to go about governing without consulting or appealing to the governed. High points that spared Mr. Bush an F in this ranking included his determined and appropriate response after the darkest day of his terms, 9-11-2001, and his his State of the Union address in February, 2003 where he put forward his most convincing and passionate address on why America needed to get rid of Saddam Husein’s murderous regime in Iraq. Ever since his re-election in 2004 though, Mr. Bush has basically been asleep on the job — going through the motions, press conferences and visits but more or less AWOL either on setting an agenda for the nation or going to the people in order to articulate a vision. Had Bush done better, not only would he now be seeing the new President (Democrat or Republican) continuing on with his objectives, but his inability to control and lead his staff to execute the War on Terror would not have led to the major setbacks the war saw recently.

Category 2: Vision
Grade: B

If there was an area that was hampered by President Bush’s lack of will to actually lead, this would be it. People with long memories might correctly point out that Mr. Bush came into office looking quite content to be a caretaker President who talked a lot, but did little. When 9/11 occurred though, that all changed and for a few years we saw his administration embark on what looked to be an impressive attempt to clean up the foreign affairs mess left behind by former US Presidents like Clinton, Reagan, Carter and Nixon, and Eurocrats during the past fifty years. Bush correctly pointed out what FDR noted during World War II — if the United States was to survive as a liberal democracy, it was going to have to harness and seed liberal democratic values around the globe. In FDR’s day, this was because of the Japanese and Germans; in Bush’s, it clearly was militant Sunni states and the old Cold War adversaries like China and Russia. Sadly, while the vision was badly in need of delivery, it was going to be a long and gruesome process if properly executed. Between Bush’s poor leadership and his administration’s bungling of the first fronts on this objective, it became clear shortly into his second term that America will either need a better advocate to sell this plan, or be destroyed for its failure to execute.

Category 3: Economic Policy
Grade: C-

Sadly, this area will be a lasting legacy of Mr. Bush’s and it will likely hurt the Republican Party for at least the next decade’s worth of elections. While Mr. Bush is not responsible for the wholesale selling out that his GOP colleagues in Congress conducted during the first six years of his term, he certainly fed the fire by shoring up spending on useless and damaging programmes such as No Child Left Behind or the sub-prime mortgage expansion. We’ve seen the results of the latter, but the former will take another generation. While liberals were rightly critical of Bush’s over-spending during his presidency, these were crocodile tears at best (as I believe the next four years will certainly show); however, this has allowed the Democratic Party to position itself as the party of fiscal prudence, a ridiculous notion to anyone who lived in the last half of the 20th century. It might be fair to point out that many of Bush’s disastrous fiscal policies were merely continuations of his predecessors or that his tax cuts earlier in the decade spared America an earlier market collapse, but when you’re the guy in the big office, it’s still your responsibility when the house comes crashing down. Bush would’ve learned well by studying the deskplate of one of his predecessors as it relates to the resting place of a dollar bill.

Category 3: Social Policy
Grade: A-

Perhaps the best area of Bush’s work, although a soon-to-be-irrelevant effort due to bungling in other areas. Bush held firm in the wars waged on the family during his term, and even scored a few victories — a few young lives exist today that wouldn’t have if Al Gore had been President. The overall culture war is a tricky area for any President to navigate though since it is becoming more and more clear that two Americas exist today and neither wants anything to do with the other. This not only puts political pressure on a President, but largely negates any point solutions they propose. As such, Bush’s successor is likely to undo any of 43′s reforms, leaving only the appointments Bush made to the bench as any sort of true legacy. On this front, it remains to be seen how his decisions will impact the nation, although the initial survey indicates that Bush had a golden opportunity that family advocates were waiting decades for and he blew it as the clock was winding down to zero. There will certainly be an influence on the courts thanks to Bush, but certain appointments suggest that things could’ve been much better than they now are.

Category 5: Legal Policy
Grade: C

While this category can encompass both domestic and foreign policies, I’ve said my peace about the latter in previous categories. Bush the domestic President was a curious study. The lasting laws he passed included moving daylight savings time in include more of the calendar year, or tinkering with internet laws. His administration was rightly taken to task for restricting the freedoms of U.S. citizens after 9/11, although it would be difficult to see how any other President would’ve acted differently had they been in his shoes. The whole design of the War on Terrorism justice system will likely be debated for decades to come, although Bush was a trendsetter in that he started to build on just how the U.S. government will deal with foreign nationals which commits crimes against its citizens and territory. Perhaps this category, because it is the actual implementation of everything else Bush represented for the last eight years, is the most telling since it was muddled, contradictory at times and downright mediocre on the whole.

On that note, perhaps, when people look back at the Bush presidency, they will see a few shining moments, surrounded by an agenda of confusion and with a world of turmoil and darkness. However, before history judges George Bush too harshly, it’s equally important to remember the alternative: between Al Gore and John Kerry, it is difficult to see how America would’ve avoided the financial meltdown of 2008 or faced the dangers of a world that won’t be satisfied until America is, like Bush, is just another page of history.

Overall Grade: C

Nobody is required to vote but everybody is legally required to fill out census forms. So, now that you know your personal information is not safe, should that change how you respond? I think you should. [Even if your information was safe I think you should reconsider how you respond anyway. Did you know that Lockheed Martin got the contract for this last census and the next one?] Your single vote makes no difference to the result of an election but census data is often used more directly when it comes to the allocation of funding for various government interventions — for instance, public schooling. Just think of this: sympathizers of various groups or social causes can lie to deliberately skew the data even if they are not part of those demographics themselves.

Whether they are identity thieves or policy makers, you really have no idea who has access to this census data and what they do with it.

“If I am in a cocktail (party) and everybody speaks at the same time, I have difficulty,” Dion said. “It affects my ability to catch the music of the beautiful language of English.”

While he said he’s not sure what his condition is called, Dion said he has been tested by doctors and told that it’s something that has been passed along through his family.

It’s called being raised in a French-speaking home.

And it’s overcome via actually caring to invest in your language skills.  But it would be racist to expect a citizen of France to do that, wouldn’t it?

Stephen Harper had the same disability – and overcame it.

And yes, I know about the “hard of hearing in crowds” problem.  Actually I have the same problem – but it has no effect on my ability to learn languages.  Listening is one thing, but speaking is another.  And from what I have heard of his speaking, that is what needs work, not the listening.

Hat tip to SDA.

With respect, this is no libertarian dilemma at all. Obviously, a basic lesson in true libertarianism is overdue. There is only one true libertarian “punishment” and it is ostracism. Here is how it works: they should be permitted across the border. Upon entry into Canada, they are photographed or identified as best as possible (name, license plates, etc.) with this information widely published and following them wherever they go in Canada. Every service center, gas station, corner store, grocer store, etc. in Canada is then encouraged to deny them service. That should give them a taste of true freedom and what it means to respect free speech.

- – -

(Sunday, August 10th, 2008 morning) UPDATE: Well, will you look at this:

Even without a conflict, they claimed victory.
—- SNIP —-
Where the Kansas-based protesters could have been was a subject of intense speculation along Westwood Drive. Some suspected the group had members watching the church. A rumour also emerged that a handful of Westboro members had picketed briefly with signs in Osborne Village.

Gee, who would have thought the libertarian strategy of ostracism could actually work???

If anybody comes across a group of weird Southern American tourists that happen to look like these people, do not sell them any gas, do not sell them any water, do not let them stay at your motel and do not even give them the key to the washroom. Just tell them to go to hell.
I probably do not have to make that call-out but just in case there are still some confused socialists in Canada left who do not have the good sense to rely upon themselves to resolve their differences with other people, I figured I ought to pitch it out there. Some people have to be dragged kicking and screaming to see how much power they actually hold in their own hands.

Next thing you know, your laptop is confiscated and brought to an off-site location, your data is being distributed to third party, non-government agencies, and they don’t even need to have any suspicion of wrong doing on your part. At all.

But don’t worry, you’ll get your laptop back after “an indefinite amount of time”, and all copies of its contents will be destroyed. All the private entities are allowed to do is keep any and all notes they make of your laptop and anything you have saved on it. That’s not a breach of civil liberties, is it?

Somewhere, Thomas Jefferson is rolling over in his grave.

Immigrants should be free to do whatever they want with their own wealth. If foreigners value Canadian paper, so be it.

A Toronto university economics professor said this “cash leakage” has little effect on the Canadian economy, which reportedly has a GDP of about $1.6 trillion.

“It’s definitely a positive from a global social perspective because it’s allowing people in these overseas countries to have food, clothing, shelter — things they wouldn’t be able to get any other way,” York University professor Perry Sadorsky said Wednesday. “But from a Canadian perspective, it’s money that is leaking out of the country that could be spent here.”

Consumer industries such as cellphone companies, car and electronic manufacturers and restaurants are the ones that suffer most when money is sent away. Sadorsky predicts that with the direction the global economy is going, this trend of financially supporting family overseas is not going to stop.

Cash leakage? Suffering when money is sent away??? Shame on Perry Sadorsky for feeding such a myopic representation of economics. What about the welfare of the Canadian immigrants? The arbitrary accounting methods of Gross Domestic Product do not have an entry for all things that comprise welfare and value. That is why it is called Gross.

Immigrants have freely chosen to send their money away over all other choices. They have demonstrated their preferences over cellphones, cars, electronics and restaurants. Denying free choice would be bad.

You can look at things from a different way: sending money overseas is exporting inflation.

If all of that money was spent in Canada, the alleviated “suffering” of the “industries such as cellphone companies, car and electronic manufacturers and restaurants” could go hand in hand with inflated prices for the Canadian consumer!

Things could be worse: the immigrants could let their money sit in a Canadian bank account. That would lead the banks to increase lending further increasing the money supply and contributing to inflation.

I was in my local Jimmy Pattison food store (could be Overwaitea, or Save On Foods or PriceSmart – who knows these days?  It’s much less confusing shopping for groceries in other provinces besides BC), and I am wandering up the “international” food aisle – which here in Surrey means 10% Chinese, 10% Mexican, 10% other miscellaneous south Asian national cuisine, packaged America, and 70% Indian.  I pass by their snack foods, and I say to myself, dang!  Dried peas and peanuts, with chili powder and salt sounds dang good!  I grab a bag of Guru Lucky Peas and Peanuts.  Mmmm good!

Bear with me, I am getting there…

So I didn’t do the whole bag at once (400 grams is a lot of chili powder!), and so this afternoon, after returning from work, I figure to down a few handfuls.

Now, I am trying to lose a few pounds so it occurs to me that maybe this stuff is better for me than a bag of Lays.  So I decide to check the ingredients – huh!  No legally mandated nutritional information label!  That’s odd.

Now, I know from experience in buying other imported foods (I love trying foods from different cultures) that when food is imported, they often stick a sticker with the nutritional information on it, since it isn’t mandated in the country of origin.  I read on the bag further this sweet description of the contents:

Our snack are made from natural ingredients which occurs in nature naturally, we take great care and strict control in preparing our snack line to ensure that you enjoy the Indian authentic taste.

Yes, that was one sentence.  The lack of connectives between sentence parts is there in the original.  So is the switch of plural to singular, and the thrice-used natural ascription.

I begin to doubt the veracity of their claims to “great care and strict control” since it was obviously not exercised with their packaging.

But wait, there’s more.

Today, using only the highest quality nutritious ingredient, the snacks are processed in dedicated batches with the help of art equipment to ensure consistent taste and uniform flavor.

Again with the case switching.  I am not sure what art equipment is or how it bears on the production of foodstuffs.  Also note the American spelling.  Odd, for an Indian company that would use British spelling.

We’re not quite done yet.

Furthermore, to preserve the original freshness and crispness of these high quality snacks, we use specially designed packaging technology to ensure you enjoy our snack as if it were prepared today.

We continue with awkward sentence structure.  But now interwoven with more claims to diligence (made doubtful by the awful grammar used) we have a claim that a “specially designed packaging technology” was used in sealing…

An ordinary plastic bag, different only in colour from any other potato chip or tortilla bag in North America.

Maybe it’s different over in India, or wherever they produced this product?

Let’s check the address.

Manufactured by H.B. Kayson’s, Ltd.

Unit #107, 12332 Patullo Place

Surrey, BC Canada V3V 8C3

So in summary, a local, Canadian company produced a snack food that makes at least two false claims in its bag, atrocious English given the company is based in Canada and staffed by Canadians, and neglects to comply with the mandatory law requiring the display of nutritional information on the bag.  They didn’t just forget a sticker – it should have been right on the bag.

Last time I checked, “cultual mosaic” doesn’t mean ignore language and nutritional laws.  Nor does it mean you can get away with lying in your packaging.

UPDATE: Yup, their website is just as bad with the grammar.  Company started in Canada in 1988.  Apparently 20 years isn’t long enough to hire someone who can write English properly in the labelling.

This is smart. Charest presented these agreements as a bridge between the European Union and the North American Free Trade zone without evoking any nationalist bias.

This is all over the French language news but not a word among English Canada. Maybe Anglophones are bored of this story or maybe they are too prudish? Who knows?

UPDATED: (June24th, 2008 — 9:30AM)
I have not been able to find any written online support of this but the radio broadcast says that these brothels serviced businessmen, diplomats and politicians.

Officials have called the matter to the attention of U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) headquarters in Washington, urging it to prevent any repetition of the incident.

As far as the state is concerned, the main difference solely seems to be administrative:

It is illegal in Virginia for a social worker to sign a parental consent form for an abortion.

The morality of the actions do not seem relevant.

Nobody can possibly know the motives of the people who facilitated this girl’s abortion. All we can do is respond to their actions which, in my opinion, sabotage the Church. I find this whole thing to be demonically appalling and my rage is directed at Catholics. Any and all of the Catholics who knowingly facilitated this horror should be publicly shamed.

I want to re-iterated my recommendation that the Church should stop any partnerships with the state.

I see nothing wrong with letting them stay in Canada. These deserters claim to have been deceived about what they were expected to do. They may be right. If they were deceived, that should be grounds enough for them to break their side of the contract and there is no basis for saying they enlisted voluntarily.

Apparently, the Maple Leaf is too vile to be displayed as well.

No word yet on what exactly was so offensive about it.

A few child support orders, all from different ex-wives, enforced by the garnishing of wages.

When you have 4 exes with kids and they all come asking for $1000 a month in child support, you will be destitute.

And it will serve you right for entering into such stupidity.

Article II of the constitution states: “No person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

The framers of the constitution didn’t define “natural born citizen.” The phrase was added without any clarifying debate. The Supreme Court has never been asked to definitively settle the issue. And so we are left with a phrase just ambiguous enough to cause controversy.

It’s not the concept of rights that conservatives like myself hate; in fact, the United States — a country many of us neo-cons look to favorably — had natural rights embedded in its system far earlier in that country’s history. Rather, what bothers us the most with our rights is that they are so ambiguous and mailable; so much to the point that the courts could actually use the wording of the Charter’s introduction to justify locking up all Italian-Canadians…or rule just about any other reality into being just by a pronouncement. What good are rights if you can’t be certain that they won’t be written out of the Constitution 20 years from now when social culture shifts a tad, or, as today’s ruling demonstrates, the justice system we all depend on for stability is no longer in vogue over on the real estate west of Parliament Hill?

The credibility of today’s ruling isn’t also helped by the strong dissenting opinion of four of the court’s nine sovereigns. Strong language was used by Justice Rothstein in writing on the dissenting opinion, giving hope that this ruling could be overturned with a modest change in the line-up of court judges. Again, even the most partisan individual has to acknowledge that possibility and by extension, that rights are only as good as the ideologues in high courts who defend them!

Unfortunately, any change that may come down the road won’t come soon enough for the victims of violent crimes, or their families, who go on to see their perpetrators go on to receive a Happy Meal sentence, even when the crimes they commit are anything but a “diminished moral blameworthiness” act, as the court would have you believe!

As a Christian, I won’t ever own the game and highly doubt whether I’ll ever play a friend’s copy, although GTA IV did strike up some curiosity last week when speaking to one of my gaming friends who holds no allegiances to God but is pretty observant. He mentioned that the game, with fancy next-gen graphics and a deeper, longer story was different than its predecessors since, in this new, more detailed version, the wounds you inflicted were actually graphic and not fuzzy, pixilated renditions; the game code was more realistic so that people didn’t just keel over and die but actually begged for their lives, cried out in agony and added a sense of victimhood that never existed before; and the game was more open-box (a challenge given the freedom this game gave you before) where as the anti-hero, you are now charged with making moral decisions as you go about your life of crime and immorality.

Yesterday, while visiting another friend, I got a chance to see the game in action by watching a mission through which the hero, Neco, was sent to kill the biker-boyfriend of the mob boss’s daughter. The mob boss, my other friend observed while we were chatting, was messed up — there was a strong correlation between his drug habits and the deteriorating relationships he had with friends, family and *business colleagues*. Later on, during online mode, the game spit out “player 1 2nd amendmented player 2″ after the former shot and killed the latter in an airport. It seemed to me like the rumours of hidden messages in this game were true, even to the point where I now wouldn’t be surprised if I was told that Nico could get STDs from some of his dating activities that take place in the game (and which caused the infamous “Hot Coffee” affair in the last GTA game). Could it be that publisher Rockstar games is actually trying to explain to young and impressionable gamers that bad choices in life have consequences?

While it’s still a little premature to say, it might also be suggested that just by striving to give gamers that more realistic experience — right down to going to a bar to play pool — Rockstar is inadvertently making its games so life-like that the ugly side of crime, promiscuity and general ungodliness are all seeping out of the woodwork. If it is this intense, the publisher of GTA IV might have also found a way to reach out to a demographic law enforcement, governments and churches have struggled decades to make contact with. Ironically, Rockstar’s realism might just have the unintended consequences of making the acronym GTA a cultural fossil, given enough upgrades to gaming hardware.