Abortion Insight From An Unlikely Source

As longtime readers know, I’m no fan of Marc Emery, the self-styled “prince of pot”. Emery has built an entire career around avoiding personal responsibility and so I was quite surprised when I found his article on the Western Standard website to be so well-written and at the same time so personal. Unlike every other “why I had an abortion” article that I’ve read in the past two decades, Emery’s was detailed and honest; I still don’t agree with him but I’m also admiring his intellectual honesty in admitting what he got himself involved in thirty years ago.

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.

Election Financing: “Uh-oh…”

This is more embarrassing than waking up to an NDP sign on your lawn. And I’m sure that Harper’s team have the Liberal stories all ready to spill once that confidence motion comes on May 5!

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

Christian Horizons: Funny, They Don’t Mind the First-Rate Services…

I think that a lot of libertarians (of all bends) out there can really get behind the idea that the government should not be dictating to employers under what terms they must employ their workers. After all, without such restrictions, many of the unions on life-support today would’ve gone the way of the dodo back when disco was first popular, and we wouldn’t have the delicate dance that is many internal human resources documents today. Individuals and employers would come up with a mutual understanding of job duties, compensation and prohibitions, making society more proactive and conscious when dealing with employment. It would also have kept current employment trends away, such as those which set up semi-long, restrictive trial periods that employers use currently as a line of defence against picking up bad recruits before prohibitive employment laws set in.

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?

Did the TTC Just Kill It’s Sweet Public-Private Partnership Deal?

Amazing, just sheerly amazing! That’s the only thing that can be said about the TTC union’s decision to reject a deal so sweet that the last week was littered with dozens of columns expressing the devastating effects of allowing TTC employees a golden goose as big as being guaranteed highest bidder for not just any contract in Toronto, but in the GTA. First Toronto, tomorrow the world?…

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!

After Baltovich, does the prosecutor still get to keep his job?

I am stinking mad. This is a horrifying waste and I have to chalk one up for the NDP too. Here is what their justice critic Peter Kormos said:

“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!

Jim Prentice: Doing The Right Thing For All The Wrong Reasons

There was quite a bit of anger among conservatives in Canada last week when the boys in Ottawa blocked the sale of a Canadian (space) satellite division to an American buyer. Gerry Nicholls railed against the decision by a Minister of Industry who is admittedly not so inclined to keep industries prosperous, given some of his initiatives since inheriting the role last year. Others were more timid in their criticism, but wondered if the Reform spirit of free enterprise got lost during the move from Stornoway to 24 Sussex. Admittedly, when you have a decision that is hailed by the leader of the NDP as being “the right move” it should certainly give you pause to reflect on whether you’re not just having an off day!

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 economy over there, do you think the Chinese government’ll actually welcome the free flow of wealth out of its country, given the way it handles every other non-expedient situation it encounters right now? This sort of vigilance might have also given our local auto industries a fighting chance, if the union python wasn’t helping Japanese protectionism to choke it to death!

So in retrospect, I think that even conservatives will look back on the Prentice decision as one that was beneficial for a Canadian firm. Not that the man actually deserves any credit, given his willingness to invent guilt-by-association taxes to appease record labels and other blunders that indicate that Jim Prentice clearly doesn’t *get* how economies work! Of course, lost in the translation during this whole situation was the question of how MDA got into its mess in the first place; if Prentice were wise, he’d be spending the upcoming weeks with his American counterpart on that one…

Paul Champagne, Hewlett-Packard and the tax-payer

Can we destroy any incentives that may lead to this corruption from happening again? or any other corruption that is happening right now? I wonder.

Sometimes we can be suckers for punishment to the point where we are blind to the bigger picture of corruption in public office or the civil service. I do not care whether Paul Champagne goes to jail or not. I just want my money back!

Even if we can not get all of the money back, I would say that realistically, firing him is probably sufficient punishment given that he is going bankrupt. Try applying for a job with “I swindled the tax-payer.” written on your forehead and unexplained blank time periods on your resume.

By the way, I think a few people in the Department of National Defense should be fired too.

“All Canadians were victims of these offences and all no doubt felt a sense of betrayal and loss because of them,” said Justice Ann Alder who sentenced him to seven years in jail. Sorry, not good enough. In fact, I think the judge’s statement is highly naive because not all Canadians were victims at all. [Maybe being naive is the best thing we can do? The justice system is part of the civil service too.] Some clearly benefited by being his clients. We should never forget the middlemen.

Hewlett-Packard reached an out-of-court settlement with Champagne before he was convicted of fraud. If you read the rest of the article, you find a lot of tax-payer’s money was spent by Champagne in many different extravagant ways. As it turns out, many assets “owned” by Champagne but paid by the tax-payer are now going to Hewlett-Packard! Great!

Unless you grow your own vegetables, raise your own livestock, chop your own wood, fetch your own water and weave your own wool, there will always be a middleman. I am not saying that all middleman are complicit and I do not want to cast aspersions on Hewlett-Packard. My hope is to point out that how we deal with corruption should be more profound than putting one guy on a chopping block. Bureaucracy can be a nasty network.

“We Believe That There Should be Limits on Freedom of Expression”

The Canadian Human Rights Commision has responded to the growing accusations that they are an affront to Canadian values like freedom and civil liberties, a campaign led by bloggers such as Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn.

According to  this story, the head of dispute resolution for the HRC spends his days protecting us from people who dare to have an opinion different than that of the mainstream.

“Savage commie Jews hate European beauty and nobility” being one of the worst things he’s dealt with, along with something “to the effect that “a nigger will try to kill you just for a slice of pizza or a piece of chicken”.

 Keep in mind that it it was “to the effect” of that. It wasn’t actually said.

 How DARE those people offend us with their evil, evil views?

Later in the article, he said that the opinion that free speech needs to be controlled is actually held by the majority of countries in the world, and America’s ‘absolute’ freedom is really a minority view. And he’s right, really. Just look at all the countries we should be emulating! China, Saudi Arabia, THOSE are the countries that really respect the freedom of speech.

 In the same breath, he had this to say: “Freedom of expression is the lifeblood of any free and open society and the commission embraces freedom of expression”.  So they embrace the freedom of expression, but they think it has to be censored. After all, Canadians aren’t mature enough to handle opinions that they find distasteful.

Don’t get me wrong. I find these opinions distasteful. But they have just as much a right to speech as I do. You have to take the bad with the good if you want to maintain a “free and open” society. The HRC has no problem with “fashionable minorities” like blacks, Jews, Muslims and homosexuals. But Nazis, white supremacists or, God forbid, Ezra Levant? They get to be “limited”.

Violent Youth

This is an interesting read on “Britain’s Mean Streets.” Wonder how Canadian youths compare?

I’ve noticed that a lot of youths are jaded and cynical, their hellishly asinine cosmion of meaning offering little by way of hope. It seems to me that a lot of urban youth are lacking the interest, the opportunity, to take on some kind of character forming responsibility or challenge; dismissed by too many adults as just stupid kids.

People tend to blame disinterested, or deranged, parents or even lax young offender laws for vicious youth. And while I suppose they are to blame in part, there’s only so much self-pitying contempt to go around before teenagers accrue the pathologies of perpetual victims.

When you consider the rate of obesity among youth today, the constant “noise” of the angry music iPod, video gaming, cell phoning, and celebrity following tv generation, the teenage years appear to be a bitter dawn of nihilism.

More police, aggressively empowered, and more silly welfare schemes for single parents are not necessarily the answer. Initiatives like Big Brothers Big Sisters and The Duke of Edinburgh’s Award seem like a good antidote to me, providing a path toward adulthood, toward some measure confident self-reliance that isn’t feeling sorry for oneself, then terrorizing others.

Schools should promote these initiatives with more enthusiasm, a respite from their constant barrage of tolerance and sensitivity training.

UPDATE: “Does affirmative action hurt kids?”

Brenda Martin and Canadians detained abroad

There seems to be a dash of useful commentary buried amid the chaotic ravings against the Conservative government for doing nothing to help Canadians who get shafted in foreign judicial systems. Stéphane Dion said:

“How, then, can he say that Canada will intervene with Saudi Arabia to spare the life of Mr. Kohail? How is it also possible for Canada to have legal assistance treaties with other countries — including Mexico?” Dion said.

The first problem that I have (and I would hope this should be obvious) is that the government can not rescue every single Canadian throughout the whole wide world who may be suffering obvious injustice. It is just impossible. Therefore, it seems unfair for the government to play favorites. [The irony is that governments always play favorites. Every time a government acts, it plays favorites. I wonder if the Liberals understand that.] Although, I am sure Dion only meant to ask a rhetorical question to highlight a double standard in state intervention but if that is the only way we can get intelligent commentary from the leader of the federal Liberals, so be it. On second thought, it would not surprise me if Dion’s political strategy involves the advocacy of saving every single Canadian throughout the whole wide world — I have yet to hear anything more mature come from his mouth in either official language.

[In other news, an RCMP search-and-rescue team take a few Griffon helicopters out to save a British adventurer trapped in her vain solo ski trek to the North Pole. Who pays that bill?]

Secondly, I am not too certain I want the Canadian government to have legal assistance treaties with other countries. The cynic in me fears that it is just a front for giving nation states political bargaining power for issues that have nothing to do with justice. Marc Emery is facing extradition to the U.S. for a non-crime in Canada.

I see no reason to trust a state that imprisons foreigners when they have the option of deporting and banishing them from their country. Incarceration is generally a bizarre state construct and this fact becomes more evident when we examine such inter-state or cross-jurisdictional cases. Brenda Martin said something very powerful, in my opinion:

“Right now there is so much negative publicity for Mexico, and for what? For a 51-year-old woman who allegedly received $26,000 illegally? [Someone] has to put this in perspective and simply let me go.”

She is right — unless they want something from her.

Maybe they think she can provide information to lead to further arrests. I do not know. Maybe the Mexican prosecutors just want to look tough to local Mexicans. Prosecutors love looking tough — it helps further their political careers. Maybe, like most bureaucrats, the more work they create for themselves, the more they get paid! Whatever the reason, the Mexicans can simply deport Brenda Martin to Canada and bar her from ever entering Mexico again.

Why would the Mexican authorities waste their time, effort and money on Brenda Martin? The actual fraudster, Alyn Waage, is already convicted and serving time. He insists that Brenda Martin is innocent and that they are holding her as collateral for a $500,000 bribe he was supposed to pay in exchange for his release. Sadly, that sort of corruption does not surprise me and it makes the most sense.

I have a lot of sympathy for Brenda Martin and her plight. However, I have no proof of what Brenda Martin was doing in Mexico. I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she is an innocent woman. A friend of mine, spent a few years in North African and Spanish jails after being set up on trumped up smuggling charges. Generally, I distrust most legal systems and my distrust is greater for foreign ones.

—-

Canadians travel to Mexico all of the time. Some get scape-goated for crimes but most have a peaceful vacation or business trip. One thing I do know for certain is that I have never been to Mexico and I can not afford to go there. Maybe one day, I will.

Why should my taxes go to pay for one person’s legal debacle in a country I can not afford to visit???? That certainly does not seem fair. Even if it is fair, it certainly is no way to run a country without going bankrupt.

« Previous Page — Next Page »