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!

HIV-AIDS on the rise in Canada

The 36% of new infections among heterosexuals, the 44% of new infections among “men who have sex with men,” i.e. gays, and the 17% of new infections among intravenous drug users have nothing whatsoever to do with choice and the shirking of personal responsibility. No n-no no no. They were caused by “inequities of race, ethnic group, gender, sexual orientation and immigration status.”

Glad to have cleared that up for you.

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.

Is the wind blowing that way now?

With Quebec struggling through reasonable accomodation issues in order to preserve their heritage, France has just voted 335 to 1 on a total ban on of face-covering veils in public spaces.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I say that there is nothing wrong with this.

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

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

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

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

And there’s nothing wrong with that.

Public Service vs Big Brother: Feds looking at fighting online misinformation…online.

From the CTV News story here.

So a story was released on Sunday regarding online facts vs ‘misinformation’. Apparently the Federal Government is looking at means to fight misinformation (and sometimes outright lies) in online forums such as Facebook Groups and Comment Sections:

The government is looking for ways to monitor online chatter about political issues and correct what it perceives as misinformation….

…The seal hunt pilot project was set up in part “to establish foundations and recommendations for future programs and campaigns to use social media as another way to listen to, inform and engage with Canadians”

Right off the top, those of us experienced in Blogging and Commenting online about various issues know that there are those out there who will immediately assume that this will be nothing more than a propaganda machine for the government in power. Having read through the comments of the story, I’m sorry to say that I wasn’t disappointed in my expectation.

Now in all fairness, this could very well be true. The potential for abuse and propaganda peddling is self-evident. However, I believe that those who will be most threatened by this, are those who intentionally misrepresent information, stories and facts in order to further their own personal agenda. I also believe that those who shout loudest about Big Brother et al. are those who have the most to lose if a Federal Representative were to intrude upon their rant with actual facts (and in this statement, I’m assuming that only facts are what will be posted). Such comments/replies will of course become subject to ridicule and further attack.

On the bright side, this is also a government who is recognizing that as more and more Canadians resort to online forums of all sorts to obtain their information, they too will have to go where the people are. Provided that it’s “just the facts ma’am“, and rhetoric and propaganda are left at the door so-to-speak, then I believe that this is truly a responsible proposal.

With Governments falling victim to shoddy “Gotcha!” reporting tactics where the Headline and By-line are far more important than the actual facts and issues at hand (not to mention the importance or lack thereof), misinformation is spreading like wildfire among the populace. The natural reaction of any responsible government would be to take advantage of any means by which to provide factual information wherever possible.

As someone who is more interested in facts and truth, I wouldn’t mind in the least if a member of the Federal Government were to show up and post corrections on something I had written online. If I disagreed, I would be able to challenge them directly, visibly, for all to see, and then be proven right or wrong. Again: Publicly. Visibly. I have no issues with this, and in fact, encourage it.

So the Pros and Cons? On the pro side, it engages people with their government, and facts can be set straight. A laudable and credible endeavour. It may also create a pressure for commentators and authors to clearly state that this is ‘their opinion‘ and that it ‘should not be taken as fact.’ On the con side, if abused, it will only serve to forever widen the gap between the Government and Public Trust. The danger of this can not be over-emphasized, and should the Federal Government embark on this initiative on a larger scale, they absolutely must do so responsibly with an eye to the public good and stick to the facts.

Doctors Abusing Girls

Well, maybe it’s not happening yet, but doctors in the United States are actively lobbying for the right to mutilate little girls:

International human rights organization Equality Now is stunned by a new policy statement issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which essentially promotes female genital mutilation (FGM) and advocates for “federal and state laws [to] enable pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ‘ritual nick’,” such as pricking or minor incisions of girls’ clitorises. The Policy Statement “Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors“, issued by the AAP on April 26, 2010, is a significant set-back to the Academy’s own prior statements on the issue of FGM and is antithetical to decades of noteworthy advancement across Africa and around the world in combating this human rights violation against women and girls. It is ironic that the AAP issued its statement the very same day that Congressman Joseph Crowley (D-NY) and Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) announced the introduction of new bipartisan legislation, The Girls Protection Act (H.R. 5137), to close the loophole in the federal law prohibiting FGM by making it illegal to transport a minor girl living in the U.S. out of the country for the purpose of FGM.

Hey, it’s just a nick, what does it really matter?  Hell, it’s just a clitoris; it’s not like anyone would die without one.  If parents want their daughters’ genitals mutilated, so be it.  Let’s just let doctors do whatever the hell they think is appropriate.  There’s no concern about personal sovereignty here or anything.

Of course, y’all already know my feelings about male genital mutilation (and if you wish to re-visit that topic, I’d suggest you do it at one of those posts).  It’s horrific to think that, rather than improving the treatment of boys, we’re just going to start cutting girls.

Breaking: Politician Learns That Restricting Freedom Results in Less Freedom!

I feel for Lisa MacLeod (no relation… obviously).  I really do.  She wants to be able to do what she thinks is best for her child.  All parents should have such a desire – I certainly do.  So, yeah, it sucks that when the government runs a one-size-fits-all, do-what-we-tell-you sort of educational system it means that you have to do what they tell you or bear a significant cost for doing what you think is right.

Parents will not be given the chance to keep their kindergarten-aged children in half-day learning once a new full-day program moves into their school, the province said Monday.

Nepean-Carleton MPP Lisa MacLeod says she discovered the policy wrinkle when she asked to keep her daughter, Victoria, 5, in half-day senior kindergarten next year. Her school is one of about 600 provincewide — only 44 locally — being turned into full-day programs this September.

The provincial Liberal government has pledged to transition all schools into full-day learning centres over the next five years.

MacLeod, 35, says she and her husband prefer to keep their daughter in a half-day program.

She was told by school officials that was not an option. She could either accept full-day learning or transfer Victoria to another school.

But do not fear!  The Education Minister is here to offer a helpful suggestion:

Education Minister Leona Dombrowsky added another option Monday, telling MacLeod she could keep her daughter home altogether.

“Parents continue to have the right to choose if they want to have their children enrolled in a kindergarten program in the province of Ontario,” she said when asked about the policy during question period. “In fact, the law in Ontario is that until a child is six years of age, they are not required to be enrolled in school.”

Exactly.  If you don’t like the government’s decisions you can always bugger off and do your own thing… of course you’ll still be legally obligated to support government schools.

So, yes, Ms. MacLeod, it is really too bad that you have been handcuffed by the state.  Perhaps if you know any provincial legislators you can ask them to take up the cause of school choice.  It’d be a benefit to a lot parents.

(By the way, there is quite a robust debate going on in the states about school choice – not by politicians, but scholars, academics and think tanks – hopefully, this situation might bring a little bit of debate to Ontario.)

Happy 4/20, Everyone!

It is my good fortune to have an office that overlooks Parliament Hill. Today, it was my pleasure to watch as, throughout the afternoon, smokers filled the lawn and blazed away at 4:20 – a wonderful, non-violent protest of the reprehensible War on Drugs. I swear, I could see a bit of a haze above the crowd. It filled my heart, even if it didn’t fill my lungs.

Governments’ war on marijuana is one of the dumbest initiatives North Americans have ever undertaken in recent memory.  It ruins lives and it robs lives – lives of citizens, police and pets.  So toke away, my pot-fueled brethren, and here’s to a day when this silly criminalization of weed will be no more.

For a little background on the origins of 4:20, go here.

For a quick three reasons why pot should be legalized, go here.

For some Marley, go here.

“Trudeaupian legerdemain”

Mark Steyn at his best. Brilliant.

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

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

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

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

Emphasized portions mine. Do read it all.

Limiting a woman’s right to know

An update for Canada’s immigration guide:

Welcome to Canada!

Women: Here it is acceptable to kill an unborn child because it will crimp your social life, but unacceptable to kill an unborn female child because you prefer to have a male child.

Men: Shut up already! You have no say in the matter.

Both: Regardless of your cultural preferences or religious beliefs, you must pay for abortions through your taxes.

Update April 13: Kelly McParland puts bluntly what I left to inference.

If you believe a fetus is not a human life, the fetus becomes no different from any other unwanted appendage on a woman’s body. There is no moral difference to removing it than there is to removing an unwanted mole, or an unsightly wart. It’s just a bunch of flesh, with no human soul or spirit to it, so what’s the difference?

Why, then, would abortion proponents object to women having abortions because they don’t like the sex of the fetus? If a fetus is not human, a woman has the right to abort it for whatever reason she chooses: because she doesn’t feel like going through the process; because it might interfere with her career plans; because she doesn’t like children in general; or because she loves Starbucks and someone told her she’d have to give up caffeine during the pregnancy. What, no latte? [...]

If a fetus isn’t human, its sex becomes irrelevant. You can’t have it both ways.

« Previous Page — Next Page »