Murdering the disabled and “defective”

The specter of a couple urging a surrogate to abort an unborn child likely to be born with Down’s Syndrome is causing a bit of a stir. Of course, children are aborted every day due to anticipated “defects,” but now that a contract is involved we have a problem.

Meanwhile, British pro-abort columnist Virginia Ironside has taken the issue of compassionate murder by loving mothers to a whole new level. If you love your disabled unborn child, you’ll abort it. If you love your suffering ex utero child, you’ll smother it.

And then there’s Gianna Jessen.

The Sad Tale of George and Dolores Brent

Over at my other blogging haunt, my colleague (of left-ish tendencies) Scott Payne examines the perils of government intervention into such things as health care.  He highlights the plight of Dolores and George Brent.  Though there’s no talk of death panels, there is imprisonment and theft.  Here’s a sample:

Delores Brent is 83 years old, has had a heart attack, a stroke, and is now beset with dementia. Sadly, her time left on this planet is not long. And her husband, while wishing to care for her, undoubtedly realizes this. Is it so wrong, acknowledging that death’s inescapable hand is near, that he should want to be near his wife in their home to deal with that greatest of fears?

All of which says nothing of the fact that another of the Brent’s children, Gwyn, has stuck by her father’s side, both morally and physically, throughout the whole ordeal.

But the province made the decision that George Brent was unable and/or unwilling to care for his wife without first having any evidence to support the claim. George Brent is left in the same position as the other husband in the scene from Minority Report that I relayed earlier. He is treated as if he has done something wrong without ever actually having done something wrong.

Sure, anecdotes aren’t data, but this is not the first story about overbearing authorities deciding they know better than us plebes how we should live.

If you prick them, do they not bleed?

Apparently, Canadian Blood Services are legally entitled to maintain hetero-purity* of the blood supply.  From today’s National Post:

An Ottawa judge has sided with Canadian Blood Services in a lawsuit against a gay man who counter-sued the blood-donation agency, accusing them of violating his and other gay men’s charter rights by asking the “discriminatory” question about whether they have ever had sex with a man since 1977.

In a decision released on Thursday by Ontario Superior Court Justice Catherine Aitken, Canadian Blood Services was successful in its claim against 36-year-old Kyle Freeman, a gay man who lied several times on the blood-donor questionnaire about having sex with other men, for negligent representation.

The agency relies on the questionnaire to “defer” unsuitable donors from ever giving blood.

I must say that all these lawsuits and counter suits make me dizzy sometimes (or maybe that’s just nausea), but, essentially, the court is saying that if CBS don’t like the blood of homosexuals, they don’t gots to take it, and any question they pose ain’t violatin’ no Charter rights of no one, no how.

Of course, back in May, that same paper taught us:

The policy banning gay men from donating blood in Canada is outdated and discriminatory, according to a pair of prominent AIDS researchers who argue that changing it would benefit the whole blood system.

In an article published Tuesday in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, researchers Mark Wainberg and Dr. Norbert Gilmore say it’s time for the lifetime ban to be lifted.

“Here we are 27 years later, still stuck with policies that are antiquated. And in our view these are policies that are not only discriminatory in regard to gay men but they are also policies that do not serve the Canadian blood system well because they result in far fewer blood donations,” said Mr. Wainberg, director of the McGill University AIDS Centre at Montreal’s Jewish General Hospital.

…

According to Mr. Wainberg the policy is “hypocritical” because there are hardly any restrictions on heterosexual donors, who may be sexually promiscuous.

Gay men are prevented from donating blood even if they are in a long-term monogamous relationship, while heterosexual donors who have had multiple partners are not necessarily banned from giving blood for the rest of their lives. For them, there is a six-month deferral period between the last new sexual encounter and giving blood.

So, I’m inclined to think the ban should be lifted.  I’m also inclined to think gay people who want to donate blood might just lie on the questionnaire, so I’m not sure the ban will be particularly useful even if there’s statistically relevant arguments for it.  As well, I’ll feel a little less bad for Canadian Blood Services the next time they cry about not having enough donors.

But I’m willing to be persuaded on this.  What should they do?

*Yes, I’m being cheeky.  I don’t actually think that Gay is a blood-borne pathogen.

The purpose of the gun registry – part 2

In the previous entry (below), I linked to an article at National Post that described how police chiefs will unanimously endorse a “national firearms strategy,” a key component of which is the long gun registry. I also argue the main purpose of the gun registry is to assist with the seizure of long guns, and that police are spending too much time harassing long gun owners when the real threats to public and police safety are left alone.

Now, from the Canadian National Firearms Association:

It has come to the attention of Canada’s National Firearms Association that the political police chief heads of law enforcement associations are planning a nation wide blitz against licensed firearms owners, as retribution for the political action of the Canadian firearms community that has resulted in the final vote in parliament of Manitoba MP Candice Hoeppner’s Bill C-391. [...]* All paperwork offenses will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, despite the current limited federal government amnesty which ends in May 2011.

* Home inspections will be performed on an ever increasing basis on firearms owners with more than ten registered firearms, and all restricted and prohibited firearms owners.

* Registered firearms will be seized despite their legal use or status, with the onus put on their owners to navigate the firearms bureaucracy and legal system in order to retrieve them.  Furthermore, CACP will lobby for a national handgun ban, the confiscation of all registered handguns in Canada, and the reclassification of all semi automatic firearms as “Restricted” or “Prohibited” firearms.

CACP lobbyist Bill Blair’s record as Chief of the Toronto Police Service is an indication of the treatment by law enforcement he wishes to impose on all Canadians. As Chief of Police, Bill Blair ordered Toronto Police Service to target senior citizens and confiscate their firearms for paperwork offenses, and conduct a campaign of harassment against anyone with a firearms license and a registered firearm. (Emphasis mine.)

Is it any wonder police are seizing more long guns than handguns each year?

The purpose of the gun registry

The cops have admitted publicly and jointly that the gun registry is not a crime fighting tool. Contra Alan Rock and the gun control lobby, it never has been nor could it ever be used for that purpose.

Its updated purpose, paraphrasing Toronto police chief Bill Blair — public safety, officer safety and seizure.

“It’s not a matter of ideology for us. It’s a matter of public safety. It’s just a matter of officer safety,” Chief Blair said.

Of the last 16 officers shot to death in Canada, 14 were killed with long guns, he said, adding long guns represent the majority of guns seized by officers nationwide.

Sorry, Bill, I’m not buying your safety claim. If police couldn’t use the tool to prevent the deaths of their own then it is highly doubtful it can be used to prevent the deaths of anyone else either. A tool that can’t be used to prevent or fight crime cannot be relied upon to enhance police and public safety. What is more, public safety does not necessarily follow from police safety.

The seizure of long guns, though? That definitely sounds like the primary purpose of the gun registry because it’s really the only area in which it is halfway effective, isn’t it? It tells police whose registrations have expired and then the badges can go and harass the otherwise law-abiding citizen to re-register or relinquish the firearm. Like Joe Fiorito.

The problem is, Bill, pouring all that effort into seizing long guns is to ignore the real threat to public and police safety. Stats Can reported in 2008 that, in 2006, gun-related crime “remained steady,” i.e. did not decrease, and handguns were used in two-thirds of all gun-related crime and were used three times as much as long guns in homicides. Yet year over year police are collecting more long guns than handguns.

What this means is police are spending way too much time harassing law-abiding long gun owners and not enough time and resources conquering the main threat to police and public safety — illicit handguns in the hands of gangs, drug lords, pimps and organized crime. The gun registry is a distraction to police, providing an easy way to enforce a point of law that has little to no effect on police or public safety while conveniently ignoring the more difficult elements of law enforcement that would result in increased safety for one and all. Elephant, room. Deck chairs, Titanic. That sort of stuff.

If safety and crime fighting and crime prevention are the goals, as they should be, police need to rid themselves of the distraction that is the gun registry. We are under no illusions that the gun registry is making anything safer. That’s why the people are demanding the government kill it.

Overturning Proposition 8 is a Victory for Conservatives

I’m guessing most conservatives aren’t too happy about the decision in Perry, overturning California’s ballot initiative (Proposition 8) that banned gay marriage.  But they’re all wrong… or, at least, so I argue at the Commons.  I submit that the defeat of Proposition 8 is a victory for conservatism, or, at least, small government conservatism.  Here’s the thrust of my argument:

Through the Equal Protection clause, Judge Walker has told the government of California that they must recognize gay marriage.  And that’s the thing.  These couples are married.  It doesn’t matter whether you recognize their marriage, or whether Rich Lowry recognizes their marriage; they are married.  By not recognizing these marriages, the government of California was treating the individuals differently.  At this point, it has nothing to do with couples.

…

Marriage does not belong to the government.  Marriage predates our constitution, our form of government and our nation.  Marriage belongs to the people.  It is a social convention that has grown organically within human society.  It is nothing that has been imposed by government – at least, if we’re actually to believe in liberty, it is nothing that should be imposed by government.  Marriage is an institution in which we organize ourselves.  It belongs to us, and we shouldn’t let the government appropriate it.  Once we cede it to the domain of government, we are relinquishing personal, private control of this elemental part of our society.

Go!

Regarding Abortion and Slavery

Rarely do I tread into the weeds of the abortion debate.  I’m pretty mushy on it; I doubt too many minds will be changed; and I find many people, on both sides of the debate, routinely argue in bad faith.  All these things make me disinclined to broach the subject.  However, I’ll make an exception right now.

I agree completely and wholeheartedly with Erik Kain’s post.  Here’s the crux:

I’m not sure why Andrew thinks likening abortion to slaveryqualifies as a Malkin award nominee. I certainly understand that it’s likely to bog down an already heavily loaded subject – but is it really so far off base on the merits?

If you believe in your heart of hearts that an unborn child is nevertheless a child – a living, growing, human being – and yet the law of the land dictates that said living, growing human being is not in possession of even the most basic right – the right to life – then how different is this from slavery?

I know I’m poking a lot of bears with this; comments are open, so have at it!

(By the way, Erik has further thoughts here.)

Out of Tragedy Comes…

This is a sad story. I feel very sorry for the family and friends of Jeff Draper, and for the engaged couple whose wedding was the impetus for the tragic bachelor party.

Jeff Draper loved being the host.

It was no different Saturday when the 28-year-old Kinburn man planned a bachelor party for a friend: a day of golf, a home-cooked meal and a night out in the city.

However, the party ended in tragedy when an ATV that Draper was driving hit the back of a riding lawnmower during the early hours of Sunday.

A little more than one day later, Draper died in hospital from head injuries.

Unfortunately, the sudden loss of a young man, clearly adored by his loved ones, is threatening a tragic result for another young man:

Police arrested the man who was allegedly driving the lawnmower. Brian Miller, 26, of Pakenham is charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal alcohol limit. He is scheduled to appear in court on Aug. 25.

When I read that a Saturday night bachelor party turned into an early Sunday morning ATV accident, I figured alcohol was involved.  It could well be that the driver of the lawnmower was at fault, and, thus, caused the death of his friend, but in what world do we live where this results in criminal charges?  The man was not driving a car, and he was on private property.  Both the victim and the “perpetrator” were willing participants and, likely, both are responsible for whatever outcome occurred.  But not all tragedies equate to crimes.

I realize, as a society, we have become obsessed with drunk driving, often implementing ill-advised, reactionary laws, but, eventually, we really must stop.  I would imagine Mr. Miller is hurting enough.  Let’s call off the witchhunt.

Book’em Dano…

Then “book” them. No? Lucky bastards, and the tragedy is, they probably don’t understand why.

So the Toronto Police has managed, with overwhelming public support, to identify, locate and arrest 7 more criminals from the G20 Most Wanted List. They have assured the public that the search continues, and they will eventually track down and arrest everyone they are looking for.

So, the newly added names as of July 19th are:

Six men and a male youth are facing mischief charges in connection with property damage inflicting during G20 Summit protests last month….

…Andrew Loughrin, 23, of Toronto, Michael Corbett, 29, of Toronto, Brian O’Handley, 19, of Toronto and Robert Kainola, 24, of Toronto are each facing mischief charges.

Kurt Roarco, 22, of no fixed address is facing a mischief charge, an arson charge and failing to comply with probation.

Jeffrey Delaney, 23, of Toronto is facing a mischief charge and an attempted theft charge.

Of course, under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, anyone under the age of 18 can’t be named, hence the “youth”. Maybe I’m wrong, but if he/she is old enough to decide to take those kinds of actions on their own, they’re certainly “old enough” to deal with the publicity. They certainly weren’t shy about getting out in front of Toronto and the world and making asses of themselves.

This was in addition to arrests made on July 16th:

Police said Friday they have laid charges of assault, mischief and theft over $5,000 against Cody Caplette, 21, and Phillip Lee, 28. Both men are Toronto residents

And earlier:

Peter Hopperton is one of about 20 people identified as part of a police investigation into activities of people planning violent G20 action.

Police allege Hopperton is a member of the Southern Ontario Anarchist Resistance.

William Vandreil also got bail today, with his set at $50,000.

As well as this:

A man caught on tape damaging a police car was arrested July 14 after turning himself into police with his lawyer. He was one of six people identified after images of vandals were released on July 7. Three were identified within 12 hours.

Ashran Ravindhraj, 25, of Toronto, was charged with arson and two counts of mischief over $5,000 in relation to damage done to a police scout car on June 25.

I don’t know if these thugs truly appreciate how lucky they are that we live in a country that respects the rule of law, even if they do not. They are safe in our jails, they are safe from the public, and they are safe from vigilantes.

Now, I’m sure that in the days ahead we will hear all sorts of weepy, tear-jerking stories about how hard of a life these guys had. The “hug-a-thug” crowd will try to make a case that their anger and violent behaviour is actually the fault of society insofar that society as a whole has failed them and didn’t provide them with sufficient opportunity blah blah blah….pardon me while I puke.

Too harsh? I don’t think so. In fact, I think that’s part of the problem.

Too often we (the afore mentioned “society”), do not speak out hard or loud enough to condemn this kind of behaviour and give quarter and sufferance to those who would seek to place the blame anywhere but upon the shoulders of the individuals who made the choice to take the violent route, knowing full well that such behaviour is wrong. They’re not 2 year old infants who haven’t developed the reasoning skills necessary to determine the difference between right and wrong.

I’m all for throwing the book at them. Charge them, and if found guilty, punish them to the full extent of the law. The message needs to be sent loud and clear across the land: This kind of behaviour is unacceptable in this country, and those who engage in such lawless activities will face the full force of our justice system.

Contrary to popular belief (albeit with good reason through demonstration in recent history), our Justice System actually does have teeth. Unfortunately, thanks to the hug-a-thug loons out there, it’s considered uncivilized for it to bear it’s teeth and take a bite out of crime. No no no, we can’t have our justice system feared! How déclassé! To think that there are those who believe that criminals and deviants should fear the consequences of their actions! How barbaric! No no, let us take them into our arms, show them that they are loved and have value…[end sarc]… good lord, I think I’m going to puke again.

There is right, and there is wrong. Sure there’s shades of grey, but really, grey is still dirtier than white. There are also consequences for actions. These, dare I say men, knew that they were acting in the wrong and they need to know those consequences. I can’t dream of any excuse for what they and others did that day other than a desire to be violent.

I’m disgusted by their actions, nearly to the point of physical illness. And I’m not alone.

Yoga: the latest victim of copyright madness

Yoga moves are patented.

« Previous Page — Next Page »