This act is unfair. This absurd SCAN Act gives coercive powers to the municipality to force landlords to do the job that the police are paid to do. If a neighbor is being disturbed by a crack-house, he is free to call the police. Only an irresponsible supporter of the state monopolized security industry would be blind to the obvious fact that there are enough layers of legislation to deal with disturbances already.

Hat Tip to CLEOnet. This act can also be quite unfair to tenants.

Check out that tattoo on the back of one.

But no, there is no connection between the GTA series of video games and crime.

Really.

What do you mean, you don’t believe me?

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.

To her credit, May has been actively seeking to enhance the awareness that we, the voters, have of her party, and scored a strategic, if unprincipled, victory in convincing West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast MP Blair Wilson to join her party (something, that was as hard as attracting flies to the Green Shift, if Wilson’s reputation of desperately wanting to have a party banner to hold this election is to be believed). Still, May’s will be a story of one who did so much good for her party’s fortunes at the same time that she did so much damage. For every point she scored by finishing second in a by-election or attracting a star candidate to her roster, she self-inflicted her party with a gaffe about our Prime Minister being like former National Socialist leader Adolf Hitler or by making the distinction between her Green and Liberal Red so blurry that the murky maroon gave the other three parties an convincing argument that she would only serve as Stephane Dion’s “Mini Me” during a Leaders’ Debate.

As for what the future holds, it’s pretty certain that there won’t be any green left in the commons aside from the upholstery after October 14th, and that May may in fact damage her party’s chances in the future of getting into the coveted television event by threatening the networks with legal action, and a hefty bill in legal costs. May herself might not be around next time to fight again if the Greens see the already-controversial marriage of convenience to Dion as the reason why they won’t ride 15% in returns this year to their first elected caucus in Canada. But, at least the Greens can look on the bright side: Stephane will be there, rallying for their cause all night on the first and second of October, as he becomes the best national leader the Greens ever had, at the same time he cements his role as the worst Liberal leader in history at the same time!

Crime in BC hits 30 year low

At least they kind of realize this may be misleading:

But these numbers don’t necessarily mean less crime is being committed in the province or that police are cracking down more effectively.

What it means is more crime is going unreported.  Someone got into my car the other night.  We came out in the morning and found the door to the car open and the glove box open.  Admittedly the door was not locked in the first place, but the car was parked in our driveway and it was our car.  It’s a crime regardless.  But we didn’t report it.  Why?  Because we knew the cops wouldn’t do a thing.  In many other instances I personally have encountered, the police no longer go to what they call “minor” break-ins.  No checking for fingerprints, no searching for evidence.  Unless you actually see the guy running away or catch him in the act, they ain’t coming.

How many crimes are occurring that people just don’t bother to report to the cops because the value of the goods is less than their insurance anyway, so they’ll just have to pay for it out of pocket?  It’s just a bunch of hassle to report crimes that don’t get followed up or help to deal with your loss.

All I know is growing up, my family was not subject to nearly as many crimes as they are now.  In the past ten years I personally have been the victim of theft 5 times.  In the twenty years prior to that I had been the victim twice.  Is it because I have more stuff to steal?   I don’t think so.  I am thinking of my whole house - in other words, my parents’ and brother and sister’s stuff too.

Is this anyone else’s experience?  I’d like to see statistics from surveying people as to the frequency of the average person being a victim of a crime, reported or unreported.  Is that trending up or down?  Let’s compare official “crime rates” to official victim of crime rates.  What is the rate of reported crime per capita versus the number of victims of crime per capita?

Assuming this technology actually provides useful information, I wonder: What is the point of tracking them so closely? When a parolee violates terms of probation, my understanding is that the final decision to act rests with Correctional Service of Canada anyway. So, unless there is any discussion about how CSC operates and makes decisions pertaining to the paroling of convicts, the technology may not make a difference — apart from a few PR points:

Mr. Day spoke on a podium with a bilingual “Preventing Crime” slogan, and his staff arranged for four children from the community to play soccer in the park behind him, in sight of television cameras.

This is being touted as a glorious method “to rein in sexual predators and violent cons” but I question why such efforts must be made to integrate them back into communities. If they are going to be released in my vicinity, I would rather their names and photographs be advertized instead of relying on the reports of a bureaucrat hired to monitor useless information emitted from a gadget.

The cynic in me says that the main beneficiaries of this GPS scheme are the manufacturers of these new toys.

We both had a good chuckle.

What twits in parliament, upon considering a singularly bizarre homicide in Canada, let alone on a Greyhound bus, thought to stave off the once-in-a-billion chance of this happening again by actually considering a national knife registry?

I want their names so I can plaster this all over their ridings.  What embarrassments they are to their constituents and to Canada.  They must not be re-elected.

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.

The biggest reason in my mind to choose international adoption over domestic is not FAS or “red tape” as the video suggests.  The biggest reason is that the need simply is not as great for children in Canada as it is in places like China, Haiti, or Russia.  While our system isn’t perfect, the child welfare system in Canada work pretty well.  All orphans or children under protection are housed in hoster families, with a semblance of a normal life.  They are well funded and supported and want for nothing, except real parents (though as someone who knows many foster parents, do not doubt that the vast majority really love the children in their care!)

Contrast this with the situation my new brothers and sisters (in law) left behind in eastern Russia.  They resided in an orphanage, with hundreds of other kids.  While America and Canada may have progressed beyond the “Little Orphan Annie” institution, Russia has not had the funds.  Their building was an ancient cement structure, with unreliable heating and electricity.  In the year before they were adopted, for months in the middle of winter some orphanages in their city with without heat at all.

Imagine that.  Russian winter, without heat for months.

As Coltyn said in the video, rats were commonplace in the building.  The staff there cared as best they could for them, but were sparse given the numbers of children in their care.  Health care was sporadic at best.  I could tell you a lot more about different health concerns that they faced after coming to Canada, but our system was up to the task.

Russia is better today than 7 years ago when most of them were adopted.  But they still run orphanages, and an institution is no way to raise a child.

Other countries that are popular are worse off.  Haiti is well known for its problems.  Ethiopia is also one which is commonly looked at, as well as old Eastern Bloc countries like Romania and Bulgaria, and the Ukraine.  Compared to them, Canada’s orphans are in paradise.  That to me is the real driver of most international adoptions.

It is really sad that so many Canadians, living as we do with Satellite TV and cel phones for everyone, and an XBox 360 in every room of even the poorest households, have the gall to complain that they “can’t afford” more kids.  Whether natural or adopted, children need love and care first and foremost.   Lucky for us, those are renewable resources that actually increase in quantity with each additional child in your life.  The fact that there are any children that need adoption at all should be a shame to us all that we prefer to have our twice annual trip to Cancun than to give an orphan the love and the family that they deserve - whether Canadian-born or born elsewhere.

If you could do something to save one child’s life, why wouldn’t you?  Do your part.  Not everyone needs to do what my family did.  But everyone should do something.  Support an adoption group or charity.  Support a group that seeks to improve the plight of orphans in the 3rd world.  Consider adoption.  Give a child a home.  Imagine what kind of message it sends to your children about compassion and caring in adding a child to it who never had a home.  If you’ve raised your children right, they’d be thrilled to switch to a bunk bed to save a new brother or sister from life without a family.

“Moi, je n’ai jamais porté plainte à la suite des événements au centre Georges-Vézina. Mais les enquêteurs de police ont tout de même tenu à m’interroger sur ce qui s’était passé ce soir-là. Ce que j’avais à dire, je l’ai déjà dit”, indique le jeune homme.

Bobby Nadeau was willing to put this past him but now his taxes are going to pay for meting out state justice! Let me guess: some police officer in Quebec wants to become famous.

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.

The van involved in a crash that killed seven New Brunswick basketball players in January had worn tires and brakes and would have failed a safety inspection, the RCMP said Tuesday.

——SNIP——-

A mechanic who examined it has said it would not have passed an inspection before the crash. The last time it passed one was Oct. 29, 2007.

This is all very confusing. It does not seem to offer a reason to trust the New Brunswick motor authority.

In general, I think this guy sums it up quite well:

WRONG PLACE….WRONG TIME!

I do not think governments should be in the business of safety inspection. Rather, the insurance companies should be doing it themselves and they should be held legally responsible for what happens to the vehicles they insure. As things are now, if a faceless bureaucrat lets things slip, there really is no trail of accountability and that serves the insurance companies all too well for my liking.

The Justice Department in 2002 told the CIA that its interrogators would be safe from prosecution for violations of anti-torture laws if they believed “in good faith” that harsh techniques used to break prisoners’ will would not cause “prolonged mental harm.”

Maybe they offered crash-courses on “How To Think You Are A Doctor 101″ too.

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.

Nevertheless, I think it is a silly ban because the insurance companies should be the first to deal with this issue instead of law enforcement. The insurance companies can charge higher rates to people who refuse to install cell-phone jammers in their vehicles. [They could do the same with breathalyzers too.] The jammers can be de-activated when the engine stops.

From the perspective of the insurance companies, the ban is highly convenient. It offloads some of their costs onto the taxpayer.

I like this final decision but I am still disturbed. What astonishes me the most is the fact that two separate groups of extremely highly-paid arbitrators — supreme court justices — can arrive at completely opposite rulings over such a trivial dispute all on the public dime.

So it is into that context that I thought it could be appropriate for you readers to find out exactly what started all this.

Homosexual Agenda Wicked

The following is not intended for those who are suffering from an unwanted sexual identity crisis. For you, I have understanding, care, compassion and tolerance. I sympathize with you and offer you my love and fellowship. I prayerfully beseech you to seek help, and I assure you that your present enslavement to homosexuality can be remedied. Many outspoken, former homosexuals are free today.

Instead, this is aimed precisely at every individual that in any way supports the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s. I cannot pity you any longer and remain inactive. You have caused far too much damage.

My banner has now been raised and war has been declared so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth, that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume. With me stand the greatest weapons that you have encountered to date - God and the “Moral Majority.” Know this, we will defeat you, then heal the damage that you have caused. Modern society has become dispassionate to the cause of righteousness. Many people are so apathetic and desensitized today that they cannot even accurately define the term “morality.”

The masses have dug in and continue to excuse their failure to stand against horrendous atrocities such as the aggressive propagation of homo- and bisexuality. Inexcusable justifications such as, “I’m just not sure where the truth lies,” or “If they don’t affect me then I don’t care what they do,” abound from the lips of the quantifiable majority.

Face the facts, it is affecting you. Like it or not, every professing heterosexual is have their future aggressively chopped at the roots.

Edmund Burke’s observation that, “All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing,” has been confirmed time and time again. From kindergarten class on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators.

Our children are being victimized by repugnant and premeditated strategies, aimed at desensitizing and eventually recruiting our young into their camps. Think about it, children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.

Your children are being warped into believing that same-sex families are acceptable; that men kissing men is appropriate.

Your teenagers are being instructed on how to perform so-called safe same gender oral and anal sex and at the same time being told that it is normal, natural and even productive. Will your child be the next victim that tests homosexuality positive?

Come on people, wake up! It’s time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness that our lethargy has authorized to spawn. Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds.

Regardless of what you hear, the militant homosexual agenda isn’t rooted in protecting homosexuals from “gay bashing.” The agenda is clearly about homosexual activists that include, teachers, politicians, lawyers, Supreme Court judges, and God forbid, even so-called ministers, who are all determined to gain complete equality in our nation and even worse, our world.

Don’t allow yourself to be deceived any longer. These activists are not morally upright citizens, concerned about the best interests of our society. They are perverse, self-centered and morally deprived individuals who are spreading their psychological disease into every area of our lives. Homosexual rights activists and those that defend them, are just as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities.

The homosexual agenda is not gaining ground because it is morally backed. It is gaining ground simply because you, Mr. and Mrs. Heterosexual, do nothing to stop it. It is only a matter of time before some of these morally bankrupt individuals such as those involved with NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Lovers Association, will achieve their goal to have sexual relations with children and assert that it is a matter of free choice and claim that we are intolerant bigots not to accept it.

If you are reading this and think that this is alarmist, then I simply ask you this: how bad do things have to become before you will get involved? It’s time to start taking back what the enemy has taken from you. The safety and future of our children is at stake.

Rev. Stephen Boissoin

And now for my comment. As a piece disseminated in the public, I think it lacks tact. I think that the caveat emptor he issues to lead off the piece is true and heartfelt, but this guy I don’t think has heard of the term, “you catch more flies with honey”.

I think it is true that somewhere along the way, the homosexual lobby ceased to press for equality, and is now demanding acceptance and celebration. Witness gay pride parades, which regularly feature explicit behaviour and nudity, but yet are billed as “family events”. I think that people need to demand clarity from our politicians, and even hold the myriad homosexual lobby groups to account, with what they are doing. A civil society doesn’t mean one where nobody ever disagrees. Dissent is necessary for progress, in all areas - moral, scientific, economic, political. If everyone is forced to agree, then you have totalitarianism, Stalinism, take your pick of socialist dictatorships.

Yet that is exactly what we are moving towards if we prosecute everyone for having bad manners. If the mode of the day is respect, then surely we can respectfully disagree with one another. Why does disagreement necessarily have to mean disrespect?

But back to the subject. I will go farther: Boissoin’s letter was inflammatory. It consistently characterized the homosexual lobby as some kind of militant organization bent on destroying… presumably heterosexuality. I think there is a desire that is common to all people to convince others to be as we are, that is just part of human nature. However, if you want to argue with someone, you won’t get very far by using rhetoric like this. The call he makes, not unlike an Old Testament prophet or a Great War recruiter from the early 20th Century, is to rise up and defend against the evil. It is surprising that he elected to use a public forum like a newspaper to make such a call. It is kind of like going to Nigeria to recruit people to combat radical Islam - a good chunk of the people there will actually be opposed to you, so why appeal to them to rally to fight… themselves?

It was not necessary. I do not support the HRC’s decision in this regard. In fact, I find the ruling to be more disgusting, more inflammatory, and more of a challenge to our way of life in Canada than anything Boissoin said. To think that a pseudo-court has the audacity to force someone to apologize for not offending anyone? To think that a tribunal could award “damages” to a person who was not damaged? To think that bad taste is a crime - well, why hasn’t anyone taken Don Cherry to the HRC for offending Canadians’ eyes with those ghastly plaid suits he wears on Hockey Night in Canada? I am sure he has actually caused damage in that case, whereas in the Boissoin case, there is no damage.

Lastly, as a postscript, as a Christian, I firmly believe that Boissoin’s post should have ended with paragraph one. While I believe the Scriptures are clear that homosexual behaviour is an offense against our maker (much as using a pencil sharpener to manufacture nails is an offense against the manufacturer of a pencil sharpener). It just isn’t what our bodies were designed to do. It’s not anyone’s fault. The reality is there are lots of people who for many reasons, prefer to do things with their bodies that are contrary to their design. As a Christian, my job is to introduce people to their creator, and their saviour. If you don’t believe in a creator and redeemer of the universe and mankind, well, then the conversation stops there. But even failing that, I will stand up and fight for a society that gives me the freedom to believe as I wish and the freedom to talk about it in public. Just as I will stand up and fight for the freedom of those with whom I disagree to do the same.

I have no problem with people believing differently from me. I do have a problem with them, or anyone else telling me that disagreeing with them is a hate crime.

Crash! Five years ago today, gay marriage became the law of the province – and, I note, no sky has fallen yet, has it? Nope. The Dominion remains strong. Nice piece by Martha here – but it would have been nicer if she had mentioned our mutual former home that largely financed the litigation: McMillan BInch

,

but he obviously didn’t look too hard since the very debate on the issue was enough for a government institution to convict a preacher of thought crimes. Alas, there is that small polygamy matter that Kinsella’s buddy Dalton is letting slide under the rug despite the law as well — and guess what precedent the Muslims are using? (first one to post the answer in the comments wins a prize!*) But ya Warren, if you mean that Church Street hasn’t transformed into Michael Jackson’s Neverland Ranch, then I guess you could say that calling the marriage apple just a plain old fruit (thus, making it less offensive and restrictive) did nothing to our poor old Dominion. Unfortunately for Warren though, life isn’t a political campaign, so he can’t attack ad his opinion into reality.

*-like Warren’s definition of “Catholic”, or “Christian”, terms are subject to change. See store for details.

HOWARD KNOPF in the Hill Times states the ill-advised bill would:

Put digital locks on our computers, cellphones, iPods, other gadgets and tools, and, ultimately, our culture and make it an infringement and maybe even a criminal offence to try to circumvent the sometimes malignant and much-maligned technology known as Digital Rights Management (DRM) and Technical Protection Measures (TPMs).[...]

Make it possible for the big four foreign record companies to sue ordinary Canadians whom they suspect of file sharing. [...]

Head on over to Digital-Copyright.ca for more details on why this Bill is a bad idea.

First, to understand the blatant hypocrasy and moral inconsistency (or “intellectual dishonesty”, as our seculatarian friends like to say) of the YFS, you need not read the pages of the National Post, Michael Coren’s column, or the Blogging Tories; just head on over to the Federation’s website, where a big red button titled “Denial of Free Speech at McMaster” which links to this — a letter attacking McMaster for banning “Israel Apartheid Week”. That’s right, the YFS which is making national headlines this month for trying to oppress diverse views on its campus, was the same group that was also making headlines back in March for vigorously defending a campaign that wasn’t just about free speech but was also known for a history of violence and harassment of an prominent ethnic group on campus.

This inconsistency might go a long way to explain why, in the months and years ahead, when Canada starts to examine whether a primitive primate can “argue” for human rights, the YFS will probably be there, strongly backing the cause and at the same time oppressing groups which speak out for unborn humans which can also not speak in a court of law but can, unlike chimps, meet the biological argument for species validation in that all non-genetically defective fetuses have the capability of breeding with humans and producing sustainable, fruitful offspring. Save the primates, scourge the people, as it were. Don’t expect facts to get in the way of York’s student leaders or their cheerleaders on The Left as the entire abortion argument for them has long been one about passion and emotion, but not much beyond the principle that guilt-free sexual incidents should be an absolute right that trumps all others.

Their argument, founded around the reality that men can walk away from affairs without the risk of pregnancy while women cannot, betrays this in that their natural conclusion is that women should have the freedoms that men do in this regard, instead of examining whether men should have the responsibilities that women do for a pregnancy instead. Nor does the rights and realities of the growing child become a discussion point during this whole debate either. Wouldn’t you expect more from scholars, charged with examining all aspects of the issue at hand?

Update:Steyn’s insight into the future of abortion, and a small tip ‘o’ hat to the York affair…

“SILENCE!”

If that doesn’t catch the uninformed’s attention about what is being done inside the hearing room by BC’s Human Rights Commission, I can’t imagine what will.

Maybe stick it under that spooky OBEY face.

Side-note to make clear what’s at stake - before even finding in favour or against, Mark Steyn could be banned from ever having any of his work printed publicly in Canada, on the very first day. He may not say things nicely, but he says things that people need to hear, things that are true whether we would like it or not. It would be a shame that Canada would allow his voice to be silenced.

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.

Both the mother and the daughter freely admit that he had nothing  to do with her failure to pass her GED.  They both contend that he should not be held responsible for her daughter, who has an infant and is engaged, almost 19 years old.

So then why did she not pass her GED?  Surely this did not come as a surprise to them.  They knew he was going to be sent to jail if she didn’t pass.  But yet they did nothing to stop it.  The daughter herself I hold in particular contempt.  It doesn’t sound like she hates her father.  But she has sure acted like it, forcing him to take upon himself the punishment that she probably deserves, if for no other reason than being so selfish as to send her father to jail.

The libertarian in me questions the point or need for truancy laws, or what the government even cares if a person simply refuses to permit herself to be educated.  But I am disgusted that this man has to pay the price for someone else’s misbehaviour, when he had absolutely zero control over the situation.

Might as well just sentence him to jail for allowing a stray dog to pee on the lawn in the middle of the night.

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!

Apparently the woman had a falling out with Megan, and decided to take her vengeance in the way of a “MySpace Romance”. After several months of having a “relationship” with Meier, Lori Drew broke off the relationship and told the 13 year old that the world would be “better off without her”.

Make no mistake, this is horrendous. A moral atrocity has certainly taken place here, and I have nothing but contempt for the woman who did something like this. The family of Megan must be distraught, and I can see how they would want to take revenge on her through the courts.

However, I am persuaded to believe that Lori Drew is guilty of no crime. She is being charged with “accessing a protected computer to obtain information”, something she clearly did not do. This charge is usually used when someone hacks onto a government or military computer, and she did not.

First of all, the internet is not “owned” by any one country, so we’re already on unstable ground by having this trial in US courts. Second, you can’t really criminally charge someone for pretending to be someone they’re not, or for taunting a girlt his way via the internet. As horrible as this is going to sound, it’s called suicide because the person chose to do it.

Lori Drews did not kill Megan Meier.

Maybe if Al Gore had gotten off his ass and invented the internet sooner, like when America’s founding fathers were drafting their consitution, this wouldn’t be such a grey area. As it is, there is no way Drew is guilty.

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.

Every barrel of oil steamed out of the sand in Ft. McMurray is one more barrel that doesn’t come from a misogynist, human rights-violating environmental basket case, usually a dictatorship, and often a sponsor of terrorism. The moral thing to do would be to pump as much oil as technologically possible from Ft. McMurray.

He is right, but missing one crucial problem.

People don’t care about human rights in 3rd world countries anymore.

They’ve given up caring.  It appears that to the informed west, it is futile to complain about women and homosexuals being stoned in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia, so they will just keep on supporting buying oil there.  It is futile to complain about the lawlessness of Nigeria because of oil money, because it won’t change.  And so on and so on.

But for Alberta to commit the grievous sin of accidentally hurting some ducks (not endangered ducks, not ducks at-risk, but just ordinary ducks that litter the face of the earth), and then apologizing (because words can never bring back those darling ducks!) the Albertan oil industry, and by extension all Albertans, must be pilloried and shunned (or all oil imported from Alberta must be marked “Not-Green” or “Duck-Killing”).

It’s about what will actually have an effect.  I think this is also why the human rights councils at the UN spend so much time condemning the USA, Canada and Australia for their treatment of aboriginal peoples, while disgusting crimes against women are carried out routinely in places like East Africa with female circumcision and polygamy.  There are countless other much more routine and awful human rights violations in the Middle East against homosexuals and women, not to mention religious minorities like the Buddhists and Christians.  Yet for some reason, nearly every year some resolution gets passed condemning Canada for meanness to natives, who have their own land, are largely self-governing, get massive cash stipends every month, lavishly funded job training, university scholarships at their disposal should they be so inclined, just for their genetic background.

But it’s done because they know we actually care what the international community thinks and we will actually do something about it.

And it keeps us too wrapped up in ourselves, straining to pull the “log out of our own eye” that we never get around to helping out other with their specks.

In California the Salvation Army was forced to close down several inner city missions because officials refused to sign a document approving of homosexuality. The destitute suffered terribly as a consequence. In Britain the Roman Catholic church similarly was obliged to shut the doors of its adoption agency.

Aside from also speaking about our government-imposed unhealthy relationship between employees and employers, Coren got me thinking by phrasing the incident that sparked this whole thing in the way he did:

One employee announced to colleagues that she was a lesbian and began discussing her sexuality. Eventually she was let go. She complained to the Human Rights Commission, which fined Christian Horizons and demanded the change. Demanded, in fact, that they not be Christian.

I hadn’t considered it until reading Coren’s column, but what if we flipped this around and an employee started sharing their Christian faith with colleagues? I doubt it would end up before a HRC. And even if we buy into the secularist axiom that homosexuals are born wired to be homophilic (one that, like all such axioms on fetal tissue, the origins of life and the universe, and climate change conveniently lacks that indisputable proof that axioms usually come with), can the state successfully argue that a believing Christian isn’t just as equally inseparable from their faith and what it makes him or her? Think of the parallels: some people in churches leave to join other religions, and some homosexuals realize they just aren’t homosexuals any longer; both groups claim that their respective affiliations colour everything they do; and both groups have their affiliations protected under the current legal community’s consensus.

It’s an interesting situation: one where a group tasked with going out into all the world to spread their Good News has their constitutionally recognized right to do so repressed, while another had beneficial rights literally penciled into the highest document of the land is allowed to ignore the acronym every employee should know: NSFW (Not Safe For Work). It wasn’t the lesbian woman’s decision to become a lesbian that got her fired, it was her insistence on preaching the news to the rest of her co-workers that did. Curious that, when any Christian who pulled a similar stunt would be out by 3pm, box of belongings in hand. To use Coren’s wording, a sane nation would actually follow it’s own laws and both groups would be able to share away but that would also presume that groups like HRCs would be under the law too, now wouldn’t it?

If you scroll through the article (and just a warning, there is vulgarity used), you’ll find that he doesn’t mince words when talking about how the actual abortion procedure “killed” the unborn child or how he doesn’t skim over the details of his then-girlfriend’s painful day in a London hospital executing her control over her own bodily functions. In fact, I figure that if Emery’s piece were published in something like, say, the Toronto Star or the Globe, there’d be letters of protest screaming about not needing to know the ugly science behind abortion so long as it works — ignorance is bliss to the nth degree.

Of course, I think Emery is closer to the heart of the abortion issue than he knows when he questions whether sending literally hundreds of thousands of men and women to prison for murder (a scenario that would have to occur if we pursued every woman who had an abortion and every husband/boyfriend/fling who was an accessory); it’s true that if we did that we would have an amazingly guilty society. However, while I respect and understand where Emery is coming from on this one (he is, after all, the man who wants to overcome narcotics laws by viral marketing), I doubt our society would be nearly as nice if we didn’t pursue a society just as infiltrated with thieves; there is a reason we have justice systems in civilized societies.

Furthermore Emery’s admission that something died in the womb of his girlfriend 20 weeks after it came to be there is revealing in itself and a mature observation that many today are simply not capable of making. It is, for me, the thing Emery writes that is only trumped in significance by the bit Emery writes on having to name his dead child Ben.

When I read that part, I honestly got thinking and I wonder just how many abortions would go through in Canada if we made the mother give her “collection of cells” a name before the little bundle is escorted out of her. I don’t think that it will stop more abortions because people feel it is wrong, but rather because those who would find the simple act too much to bear wouldn’t be convinced that it was undoubtedly right. And that, my friends, makes the notion all the more significant when we realize that choices are the domain of adults, and not children who want to play grown-up.

Oh, and just regarding the actual laws surrounding this whole issue, Andrew had it covered last week.

So when it comes to the case of Waterloo region’s Christian Horizons, the first thing that we should keep in mind is that the government came to them first, not the other way around. If the government didn’t like the way that the outwardly Christian organization did business, or specifically how it hired it’s employees, it shouldn’t have agreed to whatever contracts were set up with CH — after all, with a name like Christian Horizons, it’s not like they were hiding a secret agenda or anything! Now we can debate on whether the government has any business funding any philosophically or ethically-biased group (it’s certainly hard not to, and even liberal atheism has certainly gotten its share through causes like the Court Challenges Programme), but we have to start here with the understanding that the government of the day entered into a deal with CH knowing, or responsible for knowing full well that the organization was guided by divine principles; in the private sector, if you partner up with another company and then expect a change, not only do you become a laughing stalk but chances are you’ll also see your business deteriorate soon afterwards. What the crowd who cites CH’s government funding are trying to do is bad business and bad manners, period.

Next, as far as employment laws are concerned, I have to admit that it’s no surprise that John Tory has once again demonstrated that his lust to win seats in Toronto trumps all common sense and principle, not to mention the desire to hang onto that rural rump that his party currently possesses in the legislature. If a company decides to abide under Charter-protected freedoms of religion as it conducts its business, what right does the state have to come in and impose its own morality. If what the company does is bad practice, won’t its reputation get around and the court of public opinion weed out any unwarranted behaviours? Who would want to buy from a reseller who refuses to hire women when they know full-well that a boycott could be right around the corner? Likewise, we expect Christian organizations, Muslim centres and urbane companies to all hire and work according to what their respective entities stand for. If the public tolerates it through their business practices, so what? Or are we actually, finally brave enough to admit that this is just an attempt to impose state-sanctioned atheist secularism into every aspect of society? I didn’t think so.

Much of this will matter very little though as we will once again see a rip-roaring battle ensue where the God-haters and religiophobes of our society once again rise us to defend a separation of church and state concept they barely understand and always reinvent to suite the flavour of the day. Nowhere will be hear of the 500+ years of jurisprudence that has allowed Christian organizations to serve the public good over that period of time and gave Canada, in particular, such bedrock foundations as the Sisters of St. Joseph, the YMCA or Christian Horizions — all of which have, by a desire to serve a higher calling, given us cheaper, wholesome and quality social services than we would’ve had if we just had the state do it all itself from the beginning. Certainly there will not be a mention of that. Of course, once the crusading secularists have weeded out every vestige of Christian presence in our society, who will be left to do all the things that government is too incompetent to do properly and the rest of us are too selfish to do willingly?

While the reasons for the union, essentially a private organization unaccountable to voters, to reject such a honey of deal remains unclear at this time, it might be time to eulogize this sort of hostage-victim relationship that the transit workers have enjoyed with the city over the last few decades since it’ll never be sweeter than this again. Combined with an illegal strike in 2006, today’s sudden cancellation of service will likely mark a turn in already sour public temperament after the aforementioned week of learning from the media just how much they had to empty the cupboard this time to appease the already well-compensated workers. As a general rule, you don’t come back to the kid you just stole lunch money again for another sucker punch indulgence. That’s exactly what the TTC has done here, prompting both Comrade Miller and a formerly reluctant Dalton McGuinty to reach a deal legislating back-to-work orders, on top of considering a further provision making the TTC essential service. If that last part is successful (and it should be since paying our taxes to public unions is also an essential service), the TTC will have lost most of the ridiculous bargaining powers it used to hold the 2 million-plus city at bay. The threats of literally shutting down the city will evaporate over night and Toronto might actually be able to keep new contract raises under the rate of inflation.

If, on the other hand, the TTC fights back and takes a page from the teachers unions’ during the Bill Davis years in the 1970s, we’ll enter into an ugly, painful, but necessary stage where the public’s outrage with an out of control union will flare up so quickly that we might actually begin to see private transportation grow to a significant level of business. Fleets of shuttle cars, taxis and other creative means of moving people would remove any necessity for the TTC, which would be relegated to a poor cousin dependent on government honey for survival, and much akin to the CBC today. We might see a Mike Harris-type Premier come along and ask why the TTC’s subway service just couldn’t be privatized like the 407 was nine years ago, since commuters already pay for the TTC as it is.

In short, the TTC is about to be de-clawed, and if it shows any teeth because of the procedure, it might find itself further surgically altered. The TTC’s literally putting all it’s stakes on the line today though. Enjoy the nice Saturday weather and smugness today though, for tomorrow you find out that you’ll get more than you bargained for!

UPDATE: Views from Joanne and Tony, with more to follow I’m sure!

“It’s objectionable and deplorable that this government would not want to know why an innocent person could be convicted in the first place, would not want to know why it would take so long for that person to be cleared by a process in which the Crown tenders no evidence whatsoever.”

Kormos is right.

What the hell is going on? We should not employ prosecutors to take non-cases to court. Less than a month ago, they went into jury selection. This did not have to go to court. Tax-payer’s money did not have to be spent to have a prosecutor go to court just to say they have no evidence. I think the judge should have penalized the prosecution for wasting everybody’s time and money. It really is insulting. Maybe the take-home message is that the prosecution is not to be trusted.

Does John Baltovich deserve compensation? Yes but remember: any sort of public compensation just makes the tax-payer pay — again. This is an abuse of public office. Somebody should lose a job over this.

I wish I could spend my employer’s time telling him that at the end of the day, there is no work for me to do and still collect a pay cheque!

With that said though, I think that the Harper government, keen to keep itself from acting too rational on matters dealing with our southern neighbours, lest our nation’s favourite case of racism bloom along with the other spring offerings, might have come to the right conclusion on this one, even if they still don’t have a good reason for why they did it in the first place. Consider, if you will, the wider context of this sale. Yes this was a sale between two willing organizations that was perfectly legal within the context of business and contract law and in appearances it appeared very free-trade and amicable for all parties. However, the aerospace industry and its derivatives, including satellites, is notoriously regulated the western governments involved. For MDA, this means that it cannot compete for U.S. business because U.S. law requires that contracts are rewarded exclusively to U.S. firms. In fact, if you look at why MDA wanted this deal so badly, it’s precisely because of this law — it would’ve allowed the company to compete in the massively larger, and far more lucrative U.S. ocean instead of being concealed within its present Canadian fishbowl. Not that we’re much better, screaming how any foreign interaction would be an immediate compromise to our sovereignty and national security.

At the end of the day though, if we’re going to play nice and laissez-faire, the least we owe to ourselves is to expect the same attitudes in return. NAFTA would’ve never worked for Canada if it was all give and no take. It’s also why North America’s flirtation with China is ultimately doomed in the long run as well. As soon as they actually get an ec