Wonks Need Apply

Then They Need to Be Shot Down Figuratively

Letters to the Editor of The Daily Observer, paper of the Ottawa Valley.

It seems Mr. Sampson objects to the existence of a cross in the Pembroke Marina, poor boy. There is a limit to how smart you can be, but there is no limit to how dumb you can be. Here is his letter:

In today's society, religion is a more private issue than it has ever been. Due to western multiculturalism, governments keep private beliefs away from the public sphere so as not to foster any 'in' group, 'out' group mentality. Having progressed as a society, it is surprising that a public boardwalk at the Pembroke Marina prominently displays a Christian cross. The most recognized symbol of the world's second largest religion is on display in an area that should be free of such symbols.

When talking to public officials about this glaring middle-finger aimed at multiculturalism, I was told it is my interpretation of the symbol that is at fault. "It is just two pieces of wood nailed together," I was told. The same would be true of a giant swastika, but in that case no one would be hypocritical enough to quibble about "interpretation."

I am not comparing the Christian religion to Nazism, but how am I supposed to interpret the symbol?

I think it is inconsiderate for a mainstream religion to be posting its symbols along public boardwalks. The marina boardwalk is a beautiful scenic area, so why should only one group get to see its symbol while everyone else's is neglected? This is a public area - is Pembroke that far behind the times?

Eric Sampson

Pembroke, ON

Who was the wonk that called it just two pieces of wood nailed together. Call it what it is. Be honest about it, for Pete's sake. Fortunately, Gilles Lacaille spoke up:

Editor:

Re:Writer disagrees with the use of a Christian symbol at the boardwalk.

Eric Sampson believes Pembroke is behind the times and believes that the cross wags an impudent finger at multiculturalism. This is typical relativistic tripe, the same mentality which insists "Merry Christmas" be replaced with "Season's Greetings" to avoid offending anyone's religious feelings.

This is part of the same battle being fought against the Canadian Human Rights Commission's Section 13, which squashes and eliminates the very symbols of the founding morals of our society and calls it a preservation of free speech.

This is not about one ideology getting preferential treatment over another, or about neglecting others. This is about recognizing the existing cultural inheritance of the founding members of the Ottawa Valley. The method in which Mr. Sampson whines about the cross is endemic of the Human Rights Commission supporters and their culture of entitlement.

Nobody cares if Mr. Sampson is offended at the "inconsiderate" display of a religious symbol, nobody except for those who believe the citizens of Canada have a right not to be offended.

And if the latter truly comes into law, we'll lose our freedom, which in Canada came from attitudes cultured by people who grew up under the shadow of that very symbol, and for which many have died for and are remembered every November 11.

Will Mr. Sampson also take offence to the overt display of religion during the laying of wreaths and the prayer during Remembrance Day ceremonies?

Gilles Lacaille,

Pembroke, ON

The best way to deal with the lunacy that has galloped into our society is to speak against it. Thank you and Bravo, Mr. Lacaille.

Smoking As A Disability

I Can't Believe I Wrote that Title

An article that I read a little bit ago about the cause and effect of smoking on campus from The Manitoban got me to digging a bit.

There have been some wonky screeches around, presumably from smokers. At least, I would hope so, but I might have heard Barb Hall's voice in the background. She is always looking for the Big Discrimination, you know the systemic one, so she can hop on Roxinante and go tilt at another windmill. Problem of course is that Dalton Dolittle is standing behind her nudging her on to glory. We need a Premier with stones. Too bad its so hard to topple a monopoly, at least for now.

But, in BC they are way ahead of her, so she's going to have to pick up her game. I kid you not, that over on the left coast there is a case before the BC HRT (Big Crazy High fallutin' Rootin' tootin' Tribunal) of a woman who believes that she was refused a job because she is a smoker, saying that her smoking "disability" was the reason.

The Vancouver Sun picked it up last February here. Roxanne Stevenson has taken the City of Kelowna to Kangaroo Court over her disability and their failure to accommodate her by giving her a job that someone else was qualified for, and got ahead of her. I mean, it's all about her right! Or, I mean it's all about her rights.

Lest you think that I jest or that I have made this stuff up, I assure you fact has once again proven itself weirder than fiction. Enid Marion, the tribunal member who heard the first whiffs of this case has rendered a Preliminary Decision on the Application to Dismiss by the City of Kelowna here, and says "On with the show."

I am less concerned about what they do on the left coast where we on the right side of the mountains have those majestic peaks for protection from their political and legal meanderings on the wild side.

What I am more concerned about is that our globe trotting head of the Canada HRC (Her Royal Censorness), J Ly Lynch might catch wind of this, and make a cause celebre out of it. Or, she might give a nudge to her fellow left wing nut, Barbara Hall with our delightful Ontario HRT (Herd of Rabid Toadies).

I hear that Barb is still miffed that she lost a chance to advance new rights for transgendered females in the Fulton case, when the transgenderee in this case, bailed on her. You can read the case decision on that one here, and my pearls of whatever on it here.

Have you not all had enough of this insanity. Kill Political Correctness, and bring back the Truth. I never read "You shall know how to be politically correct, and political correctness will set you free." No, I'm sure it goes: "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

When EX-CHRC Gas Bags Deflate

Blazing Cat Fur

Max Yalden is out of touch with real society, as one would expect from a former CHRC Chief Commissar, certainly if the current leader of that band is any indication of out of touchness, and also plain old touchiness.

The Star gave him a place to vent his spleen this morning, in a piece that made me bilious. Can't wait to burn his new book.

Quoting from the piece:

Sometimes it is useful to return to a contentious topic long after it has disappeared from the headlines, public passions have subsided and minds are perhaps more open to sober second thought.

One such subject is free speech vs. freedom from hate. A debate on it raged for months, triggered by complaints by a group of Muslims against Maclean's magazine for being allegedly anti-Islamic. But the issue was never fully resolved. Understandable, given that there's no easy answer.

"Clearly both are desirable in any civilized society but they are often seen as being in conflict. Need this necessarily be so? Except as between unrepentant hate-mongers, on the one hand, and over-committed freedom of speech freaks, on the other, I do not see why they should be."

What moron thinks that free speech has disappeared from the headlines. As long as those in favour of a right to take away our right to free speech keep blathering on, those who believe that the Right to Free Speech is a fundamental right and freedom in Canada will not let this rest. It may not be in the press every single day, but it will be there on a regular basis.

So, free speech and freedom from hate are both desirable in a civilized society, eh! Give me a break. Hatred is an emotional response to something that a person does not like. Hating some things is a good thing. Hating others not so much. So, by denying those who hate something or someone the right to speak their piece is going to make it better, NOT! It will go underground for a time, like it did just before Hitler arose to power, largely resulting in his rise to power.

As I looked around, I was not the only one disturbed by this piece, and so rather than rehash this, I will recommend that you follow the link below over to Blazing Cat Fur's comment and links. Make sure that you take the first link to Scaramouche for a dissection of the Star piece.

Blazing Cat Fur: When EX-CHRC Gas Bags Deflate

Another Good NP Article From George Jonas

Saving the CHRC through Amputation

It is great to see respected journalists taking on the CHRC and the HRC industry, as here. A good read.

Here's his take on S. 13:

A law that takes an "expansive" view of discriminatory conduct based on the subjective feelings of groups selected to be immunized against existential trauma, then bases censure or sanctions against conduct that falls short of this standard, not on what the "actors" had actually done or intended to do, but on the effect their actions may have had on the most hostile or sensitive or vulnerable member of an immunized group, and finally adds insult to injury by describing this arbitrary, coercive and iniquitous process as "a non-adjudicative resolution of a 'dispute,'" turns society into a mixture between Orwell's 1984 and a Monty Python skit.

His conclusion might be sad but true:

When Canada's human rights industry, emboldened by its success with netting small fry -- a teacher here, a preacher there -- set its sights on the big fish swimming in the mainstream media, it opened itself to the risk of running into Moby Dick. As it happened, it ran into a whole school, from Ken Whyte's harpoon-resistant Maclean's magazine to a mix between a whale and a mongoose named Ezra Levant, and of course the world's only cetacean with a sense of humor, Mark Steyn. The biggest whale turned out to be the Internet itself, looming immense, committed solidly to the freedom of the seas. The good ship CHRC was no match against such fish.

Professor Moon quickly moved to cut bait, not to save an endangered species of free-swimming sea creatures but to secure the escape of the beleaguered whalers. Moon thinks he has done it, too. "While the critics of the CHRC have been successful in spreading their views, all they can hope for is a marginal win in a polarized debate," he offered in his lecture. The pity is he may be right.

Some Rights Are More Equal Than Others

No Apologies Writes

Over at No Apologies Neil Dykstra has a good synthesis of the goings on with CHRA Section 13.

He cites the two ways that the Federal Law is being examined, the Appeal of the Lemire decision, and the JUST committee meetings and coming recommendations about it.

It is important also to note once again, that Alberta's similar law in Section 3(1) of their human rights legislation is on trial, and now awaiting a decision in the Stephen Boissoin case that was heard at the Alberta Court of Queens Bench in mid September 2009.

The court heard about the egregiousness of the Decision on its face, but also was put to task on the constitutionality of a law limiting free speech in this country, with the words "likely to expose to hatred or contempt".

Learning: Lessons for Social Conservatives from the Free Speech Movement in Canada

Miss Marprelate Speaks

Rebekah over at Miss Marprelate write for Mercator, and of course has her own blog. She is a good young writer, and this may be one of her best, so far. She is only scratching the surface of her abilities, and I look forward to more good stuff from her.

The Miss Marprelate Tracts: Learning: Lessons for Social Conservatives from the Free Speech Movement in Canada

The Mounties Always Get Their Man

Getting Rid of Them Is Not So Easy

Take the Case of Ali Tahmourpour for instance. Here is the story as taken from the Federal Court of Canada Decision in Canada (Attorney General) v. Tahmourpour, 2009 FC 1009, rendered on October 6, 2009 by The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn.

The Introduction to the decisions reads as follows:

Ali Tahmourpour was accepted as a cadet in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the RCMP). He commenced his training at the RCMP training facility (the Depot) in Regina, Saskatchewan, on July 12, 1999. His cadet contract was terminated by the RCMP on October 20, 1999, prior to the completion of the training program, and the RCMP decided that he would not be accepted for re-enrolment in the training program.

Mr. Tahmourpour lodged a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. He claimed that he was discriminated against and harassed by the RCMP during the training program, and that the decisions of the RCMP to terminate his training and prevent his re-enrolment were discriminatory on the basis of his national or ethnic origin and his religion contrary to sections 7 and 14 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6.

His complaint dealt with the Employment provision of the CHRA:

7. It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly,
(a) to refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual, or
(b) in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee, on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

And the Harassment provision of the CHRA:

14. (1) It is a discriminatory practice,
(a) in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public,
(b) in the provision of commercial premises or residential accommodation, or
(c) in matters related to employment, to harass an individual on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

His complaint was upheld by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal as follows:

The complaint was referred to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for a hearing which commenced on August 13, 2007, and lasted for 20 days. In Tahmourpour v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police), 2008 CHRT 10 (CanLII), 2008 CHRT 10, the Tribunal upheld the complaint and issued numerous remedial orders.

And now a little background on the case:Mr. Tahmourpour is an Iranian-born Muslim. He came to Canada when he was a teenager. He professes to having had a long-standing desire to become a police officer. He got his opportunity when at age 26 he was accepted as a cadet in the RCMP training program.

RCMP cadet training is a 22 week period of instruction at the Depot. Each cadet signs a training agreement and is provided with a handbook and other documents outlining the assessment procedures in place. The cadet training agreement contains specific provisions with respect to the termination of the agreement and provides, in relevant part, that the agreement may be terminated if the cadet “does not meet set standards of performance." It further provides that the cadet is required to meet all the training requirements as set out in the cadet training handbook in order to continue with the training program.

The RCMP has a rigorous method of assessing problem solving, called CAPRA, since that is perceived the glue to police work. TO that they have 5 rating categories:

P – Professional
S – Superior
NI – Needs Improvement
U – Unacceptable
N/O – Not Observed

Here's how the ratings are used to wash out unsuccessful cadets:

A cadet fails training if he or she receives two U ratings in the same competency during one assessment period, with no improvement shown, or a total of two U ratings across the CAPRA components, or within the same CAPRA component. If a cadet receives two U ratings in the same competency, and he or she is recommended for termination, the cadet’s file is reviewed before termination is effected.

There were 19 feedback incidents presented to the Tribunal for Cadet Tahmourpour. They were between NI and U. This was followed by more internal reviews and feedback to the Cadet. There were none that indicated He Got It, or was Going To Get It. Finally, in October, 1999 after a lengthy process, including allowing the Cadet to respond to file documents about an internal request for his termination, he was in fact terminated.

The penultimate straw was his failure to respond in the communicated time frame to a request for a letter from him to defend not being terminated at that time.

The ultimate straw was his reaction to the termination, which was unusual to say the least.

This should have been the end, but 18 months later Mr. Tahmourpour filed a CHRC complaint for discrimination. Needless to say in his complaint, Mr. Tahmourpour was a hardened recruit, able to spit nails and shoot the eyes out of a snake, a tribute to the Force, except for the meanies who were holding him back because of their prejudice.

But, who you gonna believe. Well, if you are the CHRT (or any HRC/HRT for that matter), the VICTIM, of course. I mean Complainant.

The Tribunal found as follows with details outlined in the Decision:

The Tribunal, after hearing the evidence, summarized Mr. Tahmourpour’s allegations of discrimination and harassment to be five-fold, as follows:
(i) Mr. Tahmourpour was subjected to discriminatory remarks, hostile treatment and verbal abuse by his instructors at the Depot;
(ii) Mr. Tahmourpour’s performance at the Depot was improperly evaluated; (iii) Mr. Tahmourpour’s training contract was terminated on the basis of false pretences;
(iv) Mr. Tahmourpour was improperly designated as being ineligible for re-enrolment in the Cadet Training Program at the Depot; and
(v) Mr. Tahmourpour was the victim of harassment on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination while at the Depot.

And so to fix the poor man's situation they made the following orders:

The Tribunal ordered the following as a remedy for the discriminatory actions of the RCMP:
(a) The RCMP was to offer Mr. Tahmourpour the opportunity to re-enrol in the Cadet Training Program and his program will be based on a fair assessment of the areas where training is required;
(b) He shall be paid the lost salary and benefits for the first 2 years and 12 weeks of work as an RCMP officer after graduating from the Depot, discounted by 8%;
(c) He shall be paid the difference between the average industrial full-time wage for persons of his age in Canada and the salary he would have earned as an officer in the RCMP until the time he accepts or rejects re-enrolment in the training program;
(d) He shall be paid the average amount of overtime paid to other constables who graduated from the Depot in 1999, discounted by 8%;
(e) All compensation must reflect a promotion to Corporal after 7 years;
(f) $9,000.00 for pain and suffering caused by the discriminatory conduct of the RCMP;
(g) $12,000.00 as special compensation under section 53(3) of the Act;
(h) $9,500.00 in compensation for expenses incurred in minimizing his losses; and
(i) Interest and reimbursement of legal expenses incurred.

It appears that this was all done with a straight face, but Surprise Surprise, the RCMP did not take this lying down, and appealed the Decision, resulting in this Actual Court Decision.

The Applicant in this Case, the Attorney General on behalf of the RCMP raised a number of issues in their Appeal:

(i) Test Used in Making Findings of Direct Discrimination. Whether the Tribunal erred in applying the wrong test for direct discrimination in making a finding of direct discrimination by Sergeant Hébert.
(ii) Expert Evidence. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in failing to allow the RCMP to adduce expert evidence regarding the attrition rate of visible minorities at Depot. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in relying upon statistical data contained in the report of the respondent’s expert which merely repeated the data contained in the report of the applicant that was not in evidence.
(iii) Ignoring Evidence. Whether the Tribunal erred in ignoring relevant evidence or in misapprehending evidence in making its findings of direct discrimination by Corporal Boyer.
(iv) Remedial Orders. Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that there was a serious possibility that discrimination caused the loss of the training opportunity, erred in its assessment of Mr. Tahmourpour’s potential success and erred in its calculation of the financial award.

The Judge, being a brighter bulb than your CHRT yobbos, concluded:

I have come to the conclusion that the Tribunal erred in law and that some of its findings were unreasonable. The decision will be set aside.

The AG had submitted an important statement relative to all HRC/HRT cases The question at bar was whether certain actions were discriminatory practices, in other words adverse differentiation or were just differentiation:

The applicant submits that the Tribunal erred in law in holding that a complainant’s own perception of differential treatment is sufficient to find there was discrimination, or, as it is defined in the Act, adverse differential treatment of Mr. Tahmourpour because of his religion.

This is, in my opinion, a significant statement, made all the more so, by the Judge's finding in its favour.

The judge dealt with faulty Expert Evidence gathering by the Tribunal again in favour of the AG after a lengthy discourse on the flaws in the work of the Tribunal. No surprise there.

The AG on behalf of the RCMP argued that evidence put before the Tribunal was ignored or not given credence in the case. The judge found as follows:

The difficulty with this analysis is that there is no evidentiary foundation at all for the conclusion that his performance was affected by the treatment he received. As noted, he did not make that claim, nor did anyone else. No doubt, there may be situations where discrimination does impact performance; but it is not a universal rule. Unless there is evidence that a complainant would have performed better but for the discrimination, there is no basis, other than mere speculation, on which such a finding can be made.
In this one respect, I find that the Tribunal improperly considered the evidence. It discounted entirely the evidence of performance difficulties, which it had otherwise accepted based on the evidence of Corporal Bradley, because it speculated that while an accurate assessment of his performance, his performance had been negatively impacted by the treatment he received.

As to the remedies from the Tribunal, the learned judge had this to say:

In this case, the Tribunal made no assessment of any cut-off period, nor did it engage in any analysis as to whether the period could reasonably extend to the date of its decision, which was some eight and one-half years after the termination of his cadet contract.
In failing to engage in that analysis the Tribunal erred in law. The damages awarded under the Act cannot run forever and, as the Court of Appeal observed in Morgan, “common sense requires that some limits be placed upon liability for the consequences flowing from an act [of discrimination].”

His final Summary is as follows:

I find that the Tribunal:
(i) erred in applying the wrong test for direct discrimination in making a finding of direct discrimination by Sergeant Hébert;
(ii) erred in law in relying upon statistical data contained in the report of the respondent’s expert which merely repeated the data contained in the report of the applicant that was not in evidence;
(iii) erred in concluding without evidence and only on the basis of speculation, that Mr. Tahmourpour’s performance was affected by the discriminatory treatment he received at Depot; and
(iv) erred in awarding lost wages to the date of reinstatement in a training program having engaged in no analysis as to whether that period could reasonably extend to that date.

And in conclusion:

For the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal’s decision is set aside. The applicant is entitled to its costs of this application.

As the CBC noted online this morning:

The RCMP have won the latest round in a 10-year battle over a cadet's complaint of discrimination based on ethnic background.

Is it over? Who knows. Will other victims of HRCs/HRTs use the finding of Justice Zinn and the submitted and agreed point of the AG repeated here in their own defence?

The applicant submits that the Tribunal erred in law in holding that a complainant’s own perception of differential treatment is sufficient to find there was discrimination, or, as it is defined in the Act, adverse differential treatment of Mr. Tahmourpour because of his religion.

Only time will tell.

Deborah Gyapong blogs the JUST Hearing Yesterday

Deborah Gyapong on J Ly et al on Parliament Hill

J Ly and Burnie went up the hill
To spread a load of manure
J Ly came down, someone please take her crown
And Burnie fell flat on his face.

Deborah has pictures and words to show from her trip to view the proceedings at the JUST committee. Her insights and links are valuable to note. I give her full marks for being able to stomach this stuff. Read her take at the link below.

Deborah Gyapong: Moon the hero of the committee hearing

Even He Who Will Not Be Named in My Blog was there. Deborah has pics of his mug.

(Com)Passion and Power

What Are Society's Motivators?

A friend pointed out to me the other day that I was operating with Passion, but not Compassion in a particular discourse. Truth be told, it is easy to drop the Com from Compassion in day to day life. But really, gentle readers, aren't we all called to walk with Compassion for our fellow man?

For my wife and me this has meant that we do our charity locally more than just sending cheques to organisations. We do support our local Church, and charities that we believe are doing good work, but much of what we do is more hands on now. We can do this in part because we have nothing but time on our hands, but also because we realise that it is the right thing for us to do.

Today, we are working on a quilt because a member of one of the quilt guilds that my wife is a participant in, challenged members to make quilts for youngsters who through no fault of their own are forced with a parent to find refuge from abuse in a shelter.

But, what of goverment? Take Human Rights, for example. OK, I will. We have government bureaucracies in charge of ferreting out human rights wrongs, and making them right. That just seems so wrong to me. It is, to me, and example of "Let the government do it." Why? Do they have a passion for this work? Sure doesn't look like it to me, if you take the shenanigans of J Ly and her band of cronies at the CHRC as an example? Ditto, Barb Hall and her folks at the OHRC. And don't get me started on Alberta, or BC for that matter.

While J Ly chases after pretend Nazis, and publishers, she does so at the expense of free speech in this country. Ask Marc Lemire how it feels to have his life put on hold for 6 years, and his back account empty, while the J Ly bunch pillory him and lie about him along the way to get a conviction, which in the end was hollow and opens doors to real freedom of speech in this country.

Ask Stephen Boissoin over in Alberta how it feels to be gagged by the Alberta HRC because what he said was not politically correct? It doesn't matter if he can prove the truth of what he says, because as we have all learned, truth is not a defence at the HRCs.

And in Ontario, the Barb Hallers are chasing after landlords, transit systems, and the like to bring "equality" to us all. Did anybody ask us if we wanted it or believed it was even real? See what George Jonas said about the elusive equality. He called it a Chimera with good reason.

Is there any Compassion in their work? Sure isn't any visible. They are paid to bring people down for discrimination of some sort or other, and are in marketing to make sure they have enough business to justify their sinecures. They even invent new human rights beyond the Charter along the way.

Is there Passion in their work? Maybe, but hard to tell. No, I think it is about Power, political power. I have seen too many cases that have no basis in the fundamental rights and freedoms that our Charter guarantees us.

The Barb Hall's of this world live for power, the ability to enforce made up rights is a good place to have power, because you make it up as you go.

Let's have a revolution, you and me. Let's work at treating our family first, then our neighbours, then the rest of our community with respect and dignity. Let's us stand up for Charter fundamental human rights, not hopey changey ones that are being thrust on us. Some wag said long ago: "Charity begins are home." So, let's try it. Let's make government redundant in areas of helping others. Let's care about one another without regard for religion or political, or other beliefs.

Oh, for this to work, we need a new attitude shift as well. Forget taking offence when someone says something against your beliefs. As one friend said to me more than once: "Suck it up Buttercup." Instead of filing a Form 1 with Barb or whatever the form is in another province or federally, spread love. Why, because "Love Does Not Take Offence."

Stop letting the government do it. Do it yourself. If you want to reduce taxes, get rid of the government meddling in your life at every turn. Make it only some turns, where they can do a better job than we can. They cannot look after our neighbour better than we can. Make them leave, because they are not needed.

Weaning away from government intervention everywhere we look won't be easy. They don't want to shrink, and we are usually too lazy to stop them.

Wake Up folks. It's our turn now.

Thomas Sowell - Musing on Truth

A Black Man Who Is A Conservative?

Thomas Sowell is a black, conservative columnist in the US. He was born in North Carolina, but was raised in Harlem. Leaving home before graduating from high school, he kicked aroudn until he joined the Marine Corp and became a photographer in the Korean War. When he returned he got accepted to Harvard, where he got his undergraduate economics degree. He graduated magna cum laude in 1958, went on to Columbia for a masters and then got a Ph.D from the U of Chicago in 1968.

He worked as an economist before becoming a teacher at prestigious schools like Rutgers, Amherst College, Brandeis, and UCLA. He had a passion for writing as well and has published several books. He enjoys writing columns though because: "writing for the general public enables him to address the heart of issues without the smoke and mirrors that so often accompany academic writing. "

His writings can often be found on the conservative website townhall.com.

He wrote a piece out today on that site here, about another American conservative, Rush Limbaugh. Football fans will probably be familiar with Rush's bid to purchase a part of the St. Louis Rams recently, along with some other folks. Well, Al Sharpton and others (all liberals, mind you) flooded the media with criticism of the man, especially his racial biases against black people. So, why would Thomas Sowell, who looks pretty black to me, be writing in his defence?

The first clue is in the title of the piece "To Sue or Not". But the article starts thus:

To sue or not to sue? That is the question.

After racist statements were made up out of thin air and then attributed to Rush Limbaugh, these were the options he had.

As Sowell recounts, he knows the position that Limbaugh finds himself in. In his own case, others had been fast and loose with the truth, flipping things he said around, and besmirching his otherwise good name with scurrilous lies. Others have even gone to the extreme of putting columns out into the ether and attributing them to him, though they are not written by him and do not hold to what he believes. But, what is a man or woman to do in that case?

As he then goes on to say, when faced with the sue or not choice, he declined due to his own busyness, in part, but also because the chances of a real victory seemed pretty slim. As he points out, a court case puts the lies out there even more than they were before, and if by chance you lose on a technicality, then the liar is off free and clear, justifying themselves and the lies they told in the first place. To sum him up on the topic, the court process is stacked against the victim of the lie campaign.

But his analysis has a key focus area here:

The question for the media to answer is: Are lies to go unchallenged when they are lies against someone you disagree with? Worse yet, are they to be excused, rationalized or even repeated?

Already there are people on television saying that, although Rush didn't actually say the things that have been attributed to him, he has said other things that they choose to call "racist."

If those other things really are racist, why don't they quote them, instead of something that was made up out of whole cloth?

The Rush Limbaugh show has, after all, been broadcast for many years, three hours a day. There are thousands of hours of those broadcasts that people can go back through to look for things to quote.

If critics can't find anything racist in all that material, why should an outright lie about what the man said be given a pass?

This, of course is not only true of Limbaugh, but of those criticized by lie and innuendo throughout the US and Canada. You may remember how Jennifer Lynch started a campaign of innuendo against her critics this summer, where she misrepresented things that Mark Steyn had said about Pearl Eliadis by a country mile, and misrepresented a death threat she allegedly received, where the so called writer of the threat even got her name wrong, and only said what should be done with her, which was nasty, but hardly threatening. She, of course also misrepresented to the people she preached to, the minor facts of the misbehaviour of her staff when investigating Marc Lemire by joining and posting on Nazi web sites.

Anyway, back to Sowell. In his article he quotes the late Senator Daniel Moynihan who said:

"you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts."

True, but the real meat of his column is in his conclusion:

Ultimately, this is not about Rush Limbaugh or anybody else who is smeared with impunity. It is about the whole climate in which issues are discussed.

Without a range of opposing opinions being available to the public, the basic concept of a self-governing democracy is a mockery. If views that some people don't like can be silenced or discredited by character assassination, the whole country loses.

The courts should not be the only line of defense. Common decency should be the first line of defense, so that people who smear others will pay a price in the outrage that their lies should provoke, even among decent people who do not agree with the target of their smears.

His conclusions are telling, and true in our North American societies. Our Canadian HRCs/HRTs are muzzling opposing opinions with "likely to expose to hatred or contempt" which is such a bogus phrase, but also with many of the so called discrimination cases they take on, in the name of hierarchical rights and privileges being given to special groups.

The problem with the "common decency" that Mr. Sowell calls for as a first line of defence is that it has gone the way of "common sense", neither of which are very common anymore.

Why Do They Lie To Us?

Worse Still - Why Do We Believe Them?

I am sure that one or two of you, fess up, more than one or two of you, have had some tiny anxiety pangs over the Swine Flu, you know H1N1. I mean, it's a pandemic, right?

You may recall the August, 2009 report from the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology with its "plausible scenario" of "30,000 - 90,000 deaths" peaking in "mid-October." By my reckoning that was 4 days ago.

H/T small dead animals for this item.

Michael Fumento reports in Forbes.com that The Pandemic is Political. As he begins his article:

As evidence continues to mount that swine flu is more of a piglet than a raging razorback, why isn't curiosity mounting as to why the World Health Organization declared it a pandemic? And definitions aside, why does the agency continue to insist we're going to get hammered? The answers have far less to do with world health than with redistribution of world wealth.

As of the other day flucount.org reported that there have been 1,000 deaths in the US, and 5,559 worldwide. Oh, by the way, that pandemic has claimed 81 lives here in Canada, out of over 12,000 cases.

As you read the article by Mr. Fumento, you will probably notice a fear mentality being propagated by the World Health Organization, that has a bigger budget feel to it, along with power to the WHO. That looks a lot to me like Barb Hall and the Ontario HRC and their style, and even more like J Ly and her cronies in Ottawa. Make them afraid for their very lives, and then we can increase our power base, yadda, yadda, yadda.

So, to the WHO I say, Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire. To you all, I say, "Wake Up Sheeple!"

But, the lies told to us about swine flu might pale compared to the lies of Stem Cell Research. If you are a Catholic Christian, then Stem Cell Research is a very dirty word. To get Stem Cells, you have to fertilize a human egg. In other words, you have to create and kill a baby, even if it is done at ground zero in that baby's life cycle. The Catholic Church has been yelled at for Stem Cell phobia by those in favour of the technology.

As Mr. Fumento's article in Forbes.com from July 15, 2009 starts out:

An age of medical miracles is dawning. Obama administration federal funding rules for embryonic stem cells, or ES cells, will open wide the money floodgates for "the most remarkable potential of any scientific discovery ever made with respect to human health." It has "the capacity to cure maladies of all sorts, including cancer, heart disease, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's," and spinal cord injuries. Or so says Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., among others.

Sounds great, but is it. Mr. Fumento is not sold, and in fact is not able to be bought either. If it is such a great idea when will we see results:

"The routine utilization of human embryonic stem cells for medicine is 20 to 30 years hence," embryonic stem cell research advocate William Haseltine and then-chief executive officer of Human Genome Sciences ( HGSI - news - people ) told Agence France Presse in 2001. "The timeline to commercialization is so long that I simply would not invest," he added.

Some ES cell researchers believe "three to five decades" is a realistic timeline, while British fertility expert Lord Robert Winston said in a 2005 lecture, "I am not entirely convinced that embryonic stem cells will, in my lifetime, and possibly anybody's lifetime for that matter, be holding quite the promise that we desperately hope they will."

20-30 years out. or 30-50 years out, or who knows when. Hmm, as in not imminent.

How is that happening:

The Imperial College, London University professor insisted research "should be conducted, and I believe is totally ethical." But, he added, "One of the problems is that in order to persuade the public that we must do this work, we often go rather too far in promising what we might achieve ..."

Well, at least he is honest, if belatedly.

This is all about regenerative medicine and so:

That's especially so given that E(mbryonic) S(tem) cells are hardly the end-all and be-all of regenerative medicine, with stiff competition from adult stem cells (AS cells) and what are called "induced pluripotent stem cells." These iPS cells, engineered from mature human skin cells, are considered to be just as flexible as embryonic ones. But as with AS variety, they have neither the health concerns nor moral baggage of the embryonic ones.

But, ES cells are sexier than AS or iPS cells. So, why is President Obama supporting Stem Cell research:

In justifying his stem cell research executive order, President Barack Obama cited "a consensus of "the majority of Americans." Actually, the polling responses vary tremendously depending on the questions asked. But no decision is better than the information upon which it's based. What might Americans think if they knew the ES cell research "decades away" secret?

Lied to again. But only because they're doing what's best for us. As Jack Nicholson's character said to Tom Cruise's character in A Few Good Men: "You can't handle the truth." I not only can handle the truth, I demand the truth. I am sick and tired of being lied to for my own good, by people who are beneath my dignity, if they think that lying to me is going to make me support them in further lies.

I wonder what else Michael Fumento has uncovered. Hmmm!

Those CHRC Folks Are Keeping Busy

Keeping Our Nation's Capital Safe for Handicapped Folks, Don't You Know

Here is a fiasco because the CHRC does not know how to say NO to ID 10 T's - idiots.

The Ottawa Citizen reports on the case of the York Street steps or elevator or ramp or whatever for the disabled. In what is a case of insanity breeds itself and then eats its young, this theater of the absurd has played out for 10 years now.

The most interesting line in the story is this:

Tell me this isn't insane. It is no longer a fight about principle. We are slicing the fog.

That pretty much sums it up, but you really should read the whole thing. It is funny, not so much humorous, as funny strange what has happened, and could only happen in the Nation's Capital, unless it happened somewhere else, like under Barb Hall's watch, which fortunately it didn't, but maybe now it will.

After 10 years of round and round the merry go round, it has gone from CHRC to court and now is back at the CHRC again.

Tweaking with S. 13

Jay Currie Has Some Ideas

In the Spirit of Thanksgiving, Jay put this out for your edification.

He suggests to the law tweakers out there that, if they are inclined they make S. 13 operate like a real law in a real court, they could for cease and desist types of CRIMES (using that word loosely), have such procedural niceties as:

• presumption of innocence
• proof beyond a reasonable doubt
• requirement of mens rea
• the right against self-incrimination
• full and timely disclosure of the case to be met and all evidence disclosed
• a Preliminary Hearing at which the Commission would be required to make out a prima facie case
• instant dismissal as of right where the Commission fails to follow required procedure in a timely manner
• the provision, at Commission expense, of a lawyer to the Respondent
• unlimited cross-examination of Commission witnesses as well as document discovery and interlocutories.

For those CRIMES calling for censure, they could maybe go for a few things like:

• truth – where the material complained of was factually true
• fair comment
• responsible journalism: public interest – where the Respondent has taken reasonable measures to ascertain the truth about a matter which is of public interest
• publication in the public interest – where the intent of the Respondent is to publish material which is of public interest
• quotation – where a Respondent merely quotes the words of another without adopting them expressly as his own.

Good ideas, but as he says, better to repeal the darn thing, and put it out of its and our misery.

What If The CHRC Held A Hearing And Nobody Came?

Well, There Would Be No Losers

h/t BCF.

The CHRC held a hearing:

The hearing of this complaint was convened at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, September 21, 2009 at Portage la Prairie, Manitoba. At the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal Registry Officer announced the case for hearing and called for appearances.

What happened?

The complainant, Joan Jollasse did not appear nor did anyone appear on her behalf. The respondent's representative, Chief Norman Bert Bone, did not appear nor did anyone appear representing the respondent Keeseekoowenin First Nation.

I can't stop laughing at this instance of government bumbling. You have to read the Decision to see that the only person who cared about the case was the guy from the Tribunal. There was really no reason to expect that they would have appeared either, since they had not even shown enough interest to call in to the settlement conference.

Calgary Herald Holds Axe Over S 13

Says: Stop The Rot To Our Right For Free Speech

This morning the Calgary Herald comes out firmly once again in favour of free speech. They have called previously on Stelmach to drop S. 3(1) of the Alberta HRCM Act, the ugly fraternal twin of S. 13. so this is not unexpected, in either tone or strength.

The Editorial piece starts with:

The mills of Parliament grind slowly, but we urge that they eventually also grindsmall-- and once and for all, get the Canadian Human Rights Commission out of the business of policing your opinions.

They noted that Jack and Jill went up the hill (I mean Ezra and Mark), and made a point or two while they were there:

Unlike the code, with its rigorous standards of evidence and procedure, the federal commission system had by its lack of those same attributes become "corrupted and diseased beyond salvation," they declared.

I think the use of the terms "corrupted and diseased beyond salvation," were fairly tame for our two intrepid freedom fighters, who are never, and who were not at this juncture at a loss for words, just maybe being a little polite in the present company.

As the Herald heralds:

We agree. What else would one call it? People accused of simply sticking up for their passionately held beliefs may be convicted and fined without even the usual defences afforded by the law, in tribunals where hearsay and conjecture may be admitted as damaging evidence. How much more diseased can it get, than this self-same government agency actively trying to entrap people whose views offend them?

The same may be said of the federal body's provincial clones, Alberta's human rights commission among them, thanks to egregious decisions that, by persecuting those whose views no longer fit the wandering mainstream of public opinion, effectively closed off debate on matters of current concern.

The Herald also opines as follows:

When Ottawa gave the commissions extraordinary powers to adjudicate speech and publication, hoping thereby to combat discrimination, the end sought was praiseworthy.

Interesting statement, but a throwaway line that slips off the tongue or keys easily but has no depth to it. Think about it for a bit and see if in the light of day the sentence has any veracity, and whether the end it has come to could have been predicted. If you are having difficulty, remember George Orwell and 1984.

However, it is all in all a very good editorial piece and concludes well:

Canadians who exercise the right of free speech that is this country's heritage, may have to face the scorn of their neighbours if their ideas are strange, marginal, rude or iconoclastic.

They should not, however, have to fear the wrath of a government agency.

It is Ottawa's moment to restore an old liberty: The system, rotten for years, has conceded its own decay.

How true. One of our intrepid freedom fighters brought up Gille Marchildon for a time, the head of EGALE, the gay rights lobby group, who had 3 reasons for not wanting to ban speech, 1) it let you know who your enemies were, 2) it provided teachable moments, and most importantly 3) it then required of individuals that they exercise their civic duty when offended by something going on in society by telling someone, or writing a letter to the editor or some other form of action.

Of course, we all know what happened to Stephen Boissoin when he exercised his civic duty over 7 years ago, by sending a letter to the editor about something that offended his sensibilities as well as his Christian beliefs. That's why S. 13 needs to go.

Siege of the Hill

Mark Steyn And Ezra Levant Storm Parliament Hill Sorta

Mark and Ezra went to the Hill
With common sense in their chatter
In hopes J Ly would fall down
And lose her crown
And Section 13 would come tumbling after.

It dawned on me from first blush on following the blogs of Mark and Ezra on Capital Hill that speaking to a bunch of parliamentarians about anything is like trying to herd cats, but good on you Mark and Ezra for going there and having a go at them.

Read all about it everywhere on the blog today. I plan to. This is a good thing for free speech. It's like a free shot.

Go for it Guys!

HRC's - To Serve and Protect?

Nope - "Controlling Human Emotions in General and Extinguishing Hatred in Particular"

I have taken a few days to read and digest Dr. Barry Cooper's "Canada’s “Schauprozess” —Show Trials, Free Speech and Canadian Human Rights Commissions", a report he prepared for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is at the U of Calgary, since 1981, and hold degrees including a PhD from Duke University. He has been around the block, and has published 25 books and about 150 articles on various political science related topics.

So, his 22 page expose of HRCs in general and the Canadian HRC in particular here, is worthwhile reading, though no surprise in either context or content to those who value free speech, and follow the blogs. He echoes Ezra Levant's words, quotes bloopers from Dean Steacy about free speech as an American concept, and details some of the actions of He Who Will Not Be Named In my Blog. His distrust for J Ly is also documented inside, including her "reverse chill", and her file of 1,200 things.

But, in that he is published by the Frontier Centre, it will be read by people who have had no idea of this until now, which is good news, and we sure could use a little good news today, or any day for that matter.

One thing I had missed back in 2008 was an article of Mark Steyn's that Dr. Cooper quoted, and references to Barbara Hall and new in the summer of 2008 policies of the Ontario HRC.

Here is some of what Mr. Steyn had to say in his April 23, 2008 article:

Beginning on July 1, under Ontario's "human rights" reforms, Commissar Hall will have far greater powers to initiate prosecutions against all and sundry. Under the new proposals, " 'hate incident' means any act or omission, whether criminal or not, that expresses bias, prejudice, bigotry or contempt toward a vulnerable or disadvantaged community or its members." "Act or omission"? Of course. The act of not acting in an insufficiently non-hateful way can itself be hateful. Whether or not the incident is a non-incident is incidental. I quote from "Concepts Of Race And Racism And Implications For OHRC Policy" as published on the OHRC website:

"The denial of racism used by so many whites in positions of authority ranging from the supervisor in a work place to the chief of Police and ministers of government must be understood for what it is: an example of White hegemonic power over those considered 'other.' "

This, of course was part of the splitting of the HRC into 3 disparate parts, so they could appear to be at arm's length from each other.

Dr. Cooper was called by the Alberta HRC to opine on the Boissoin letter, and I will look that up soon to see what he had to say, though he makes a general reference to his testimony in the document.

Intellectual freedom in Canada: The fire along the northern border is not people roasting marshmallows

Denyse O'Leary Nails It

<Post-Darwinist>:

Sure Could Use A Little Good News Today

Well Anne, We Have Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn on the Hill on Monday

Man the lifeboats. The real Jew and the guy with the Jewlike name are on the Hill on Monday at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. They will be testifying between 3:30 and 4:30. Apparently it is televised, presumably on CPAC, though the Comedy Network would have been a good place for it.

Read more at cbc.ca here.

This is a good thing. CBC reports as follows:

On Monday, the committee will hear from both Steyn and Ezra Levant, who know what it's like to fight a human rights complaint over their journalism. Jennifer Lynch, the Chief Commissioner for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, is also expected to be called before the committee.

I am mistaken. J Ly should be on Comedy Network. Can't wait. Get your PVR's ready folks.

Blazing Cat Fur: Rally the Troops for Free Speech - A campaign for intervenor status in the Judicial Review of Warman v. Lemire

Lemire is Being Appealed

Read here how you can help get this odious piece of legislation out of here.

Blazing Cat Fur: Rally the Troops for Free Speech - A campaign for intervenor status in the Judicial Review of Warman v. Lemire