Equality is a Chimera

George Jonas: "Equality" and other Fairy Tails

Boy, is George Jonas going to be in trouble with all the hopey-changers out there. I like that. Read it here at National Post in the Full Comment Blog section.

So, in his first paragraph, he says, "Equality is a chimera." For those who don't or didn't remember of ever really know what a chimera is, the sentence doesn't mean much. Well, count me in for not knowing. There are 2 definitions of chimera that fit his point. First, a chimera from Greek mythology was "an imaginary monster composed of incongruous parts". That works, but so does a second definition. The second one is "an illusion of fabrication of the mind." That works too, maybe better.

Mr. Jonas, never at a loss for words gets to the meat of his hypothesis here:

Halfway between Equality Day in the United States (Aug. 26) and Equality Day in Canada (Apr. 17) is a perfect day to write about equality. The concept itself is a halfway state, inherently unstable, like a coin standing on its edge before morphing into heads or tails.

Designated by the U.S. Congress in 1971, Equality Day commemorates the passage of the 19th Amendment, the day in 1920 on which American women were given the vote. The bill celebrating it half a century later was shepherded through the legislature by Rep. Bella Abzug, an early leader of feminism’s second wave in America.

Canada’s Equality Day marks the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms coming into force in 1985, three years after the Charter itself. Section 15 is a thoroughly modern document, with its second subsection cancelling the first, with barely a pause for breath. What Section 15 (1) giveth, Section 15 (2) taketh away. Subsection (1) explains that we’re all equal, and subsection (2) explains why some of us are more equal than others.

His point on Section 15 of the CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS is based on the law as it stands:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Mr. Jonas says that equality is "a human ideal and a legal fiction," and that the world's natural condition is in fact "hierarchy." He has this to say:

Human beings advance ideals of equality to deconstruct current social, ideological or biological hierarchies. Those at the bottom of some existing hierarchical structure perceive their position as unjust, and by extension come to view hierarchy itself as unjust and maybe even unnatural. Rather than seeking a position of dominance in the structure as it exists, they wish to replace it with a structure of equality.

The wish is often genuine. While the underdog’s quest for equality may mask a desire for dominance, honesty is probably common in the early stages. People who think of themselves as disenfranchised or marginalized may not seek to disenfranchise or marginalize others. It’s only when their revolution succeeds that they almost invariably end up doing so.

As he says, elite groups surface in any system or revolution against that system. We can knowing point fingers at communist states, but then Mr. Jonas goes on:

But a coercive society need not be communist. Any state religion will do, even multicultural eco-feminism. “Human rights” empower elites to rule as readily as “divine rights” used to empower feudal princes.

In fully developed statist societies, secular or theocratic, the elite decide how their fellow citizens shall live — in some instances, for how long. They stream people into jobs and locations; tell them what to say, read, write and think; what to eat and how much; when and how to defend themselves — sometimes even whom to marry or divorce. In many areas of life the baronial powers of modern elites exceed the powers of medieval liege lords over their serfs.

After any kind of revolution, the deck chairs are rearranged and life goes on as normal, with new players ruling. But, of course, look at the side of the ship you are on. See the name Titanic over there. It is only a matter of time until this regime falters, or is dethroned.

His conclusion is of course telling:

Revolutions can do anything, except do away with hierarchies. Like the feminists of our day, revolutionaries may begin with slogans of equality, but inevitably continue with slogans of empowerment. Patriarchy is dead, long live matriarchy. Equality is but a brief scenic route between the two.

So, what does that say for revolution here in Canada, or how about the one that many of us are challenging today. Let's take the HRCs/HRTs. Please take our HRCs. Somebody somewhere, please.

As my father used to say: If the shoe fits, wear it. Worth thinking about.

Do For Others What God Does For You

Max Lucado Excerpt from "A Love Worth Giving"

Max Lucado speaks a lot of wisdom, which I am grateful to receive.

You and I have the privilege to do for others what God does for us. How do we show people that we believe in them?

Show up. Nothing takes the place of your presence. Letters are nice. Phone calls are special, but being there in the flesh sends a message.

Do you believe in your kids? Then show up. Show up at their games. Show up at their plays. Show up at their recitals. It may not be possible to make each one, but it’s sure worth the effort. Do you believe in your friends? Then show up. Show up at their graduations and weddings. Spend time with them. You want to bring out the best in someone? Then show up.

Listen up. You don’t have to speak to encourage. The Bible says, “It is best to listen much, speak little” (James 1:19 TLB). We tend to speak much and listen little. There is a time to speak. But there is also a time to be quiet. That’s what my father did. Dropping a fly ball may not be a big deal to most people, but if you are thirteen years old and have aspirations of the big leagues, it is a big deal. Not only was it my second error of the game, it allowed the winning run to score.

I didn’t even go back to the dugout. I turned around in the middle of left field and climbed over the fence. I was halfway home when my dad found me. He didn’t say a word. Just pulled over to the side of the road, leaned across the seat, and opened the passenger door. We didn’t speak. We didn’t need to. We both knew the world had come to an end. When we got home, I went straight to my room, and he went straight to the kitchen. Presently he appeared in front of me with cookies and milk. He took a seat on the bed, and we broke bread together. Somewhere in the dunking of the cookies I began to realize that life and my father’s love would go on. In the economy of male adolescence, if you love the guy who drops the ball, then you really love him. My skill as a baseball player didn’t improve, but my confidence in Dad’s love did. Dad never said a word. But he did show up. He did listen up. To bring out the best in others, do the same, and then, when appropriate:

Speak up.

You have the power to change someone’s life simply by the words that you speak. “Death and life are in the power of the tongue” (Prov. 18:21 NKJV). That’s why Paul urges you and me to be careful. “When you talk, do not say harmful things, but say what people need—words that will help others become stronger” (Eph. 4:29).

Earlier I gave you a test for love. There’s also a test for the tongue. Before you speak, ask: Will what I’m about to say help others become stronger? You have the ability, with your words, to make a person stronger. Your words are to their soul what a vitamin is to their body. If you had food and saw someone starving, would you not share it? If you had water and saw someone dying of thirst, would you not give it? Of course you would. Then won’t you do the same for their hearts? Your words are food and water! Do not withhold encouragement from the discouraged. Do not keep affirmation from the beaten down! Speak words that make people stronger. Believe in them as God has believed in you.

From A Love Worth Giving
Copyright (Thomas Nelson, 2002) Max Lucado

The Speak Up part is a challenge with a blog. Because, nobody is really listening in the normal sense of that word. It's your/my blog and I can say what I want. However, it is my desire to speak words that bring truth, and not hurt, unless a little pain is good for the soul. I am not the judge of that, so hope that my words bring truth. I try to check my ego at the door when I sit down, but do not succeed always, though I hope I am more successful than failing.

I have been hard on Jim Corcoran because he is doing something that is very hurtful to the Church. He didn't start it in one sense, but he is in charge of the pain machine now. Yet, I believe that he is a good man, with a good heart, who desires to do the right thing.

I am hard on the HRCs/HRTs not because the people in them are bad, even though I poke fun at them from time to time. They are people trying to do their best, but what they are doing is not helping, but hurting the people of Canada, and runs counter to the fundamental rights and freedoms of all people in Canada, in the name of political correctness, which is not a name worth doing something in.

Eventually, we shall all have freedom because of the truth, not my truth, or your truth, but because in the fullness of time, TRUTH will be revealed to us all as individuals, and we will have no practical choice but to follow it.

Federal Prisoners Go To Court For Right To Smoke

They Would Have Won in J Ly's Kangaroo Court

The Globe reports that inmates in Quebec are going to Federal Court with a human rights lawyer in tow to fight for their rights. They are fighting the tobacco ban in federal prisons.

Their lawyer has some thoughts worth throwing away like:

Julius Grey, a Montreal constitutional lawyer, says the ban violates inmates' charter rights and is discriminatory because guards can still smoke outside.

“Smoking is so politically incorrect that people forget how important it is in the lives of some people,” Mr. Grey, a non-smoker, said yesterday.

Canadian prisoners don't lose rights other than those tied directly to their imprisonment, he said.

“The right to smoke is not an absolute right, but it is a life choice, and it is a significant life choice to some individuals,” he said.

I didn't know that smoking was a charter right. Breathing clean air, not so much, I guess.

They have more than one lawyer working for them and the second one chimed in as well:

Lawyer Isabelle Turgeon is also representing the inmates, who are scattered throughout four different penitentiaries. She said the tobacco ban has exacerbated tensions in prisons. Guards taunt the inmates because staff can smoke outdoors in designated areas, she said.

“Most people think prisoners should all rot. But they're still human beings, they're not animals,” she said. “These are people who can be incarcerated for 20, 25 years. They lose their freedom, and on top of that, they can't smoke.”

Wow, they lose their freedom, and on top of that they can't smoke. I am touched, I tell you. Saddened to the bone. I think I will write my Congressman. Oops, wrong country. Maybe I'll write a letter to . . . No, I'll write a blog post.

I can't believe this sentence:

In a brief to the Federal Court, the inmates say their litany of woes caused by tobacco deprivation has, perversely, made them “greatly fear for their health.”

I am pretty sure that if they had gone to J Ly, they would have gotten the hearing they wanted, and probably even money for their pain and suffering. A real court might not have the sympathy they are trying to get. Certainly, the general public, and the families of those these hardened criminals have harmed over the years are not likely too sympathetic to their mournful pleas.

Some Things Are Very Interesting in What They Say

Some Are More Interesting in What They Don't Say

The shotgun blog on Western Standard here called Steve Ashton an idiot. That's the second to last NDP leadership hopeful that is running to be premier of the Province of Manitoba, for planning on bringing in a piece of UK based hate legislation that I reported on recently here called the Dignity Act. It was posted by "Posted by Freedom Manitoba on October 1, 2009". In other words it was posted anonymously, and who can blame him or her.

Meanwhile a "Staff Writer", so another anonymous person wrote the following article in the Winnipeg Free Press editorial area titled " Mr. Ashton, were it so easy". It is at worst a puff piece, and should not subject Staff Writer to the whip or ball and chain from Mr. Ashton should he ascend to power and put his odious legislation into place. That piece ends with the following conclusion:

He is proposing to introduce a version of Britain's Race Relations Act, an aggressive statute that, among other things, makes it easier to convict an employer of discrimination. At this point, Mr. Ashton's ideas are long on platitudes and short on details.

Freedom Manitoba could be jailed under Mr. Ashton's plan for calling it as he sees it. Staff Writer should have to eat swallow his story whole printed on recycled newsprint then used to wrap old fish for writing such useless drivel. However, on the other hand, he will be free from persecution by Mr. Ashton and his new gestapo when they get their jackboots issued and hit the bricks, should that glorious day arrive.

Be a man, Staff Writer and call this freebooter what he is. The people of Manitoba deserve to know the truth, not be served up pablum.

Human Right to Give Blood?

Fortunately He Didn't Go to Barb

National Post Editorial Board reports the story of Kyle Freeman here. Mr. Freeman, apparently a gay man lied to Canadian Blood Services when answering questions prior to giving blood, and then fessed up about it. They sued him for $10,000, but he is making a constitutional challenge that it is his human right to give blood, questions be damned.

Just read it. It makes me sick thinking about this kind of insanity.

The good news is that he went to a real court and not a Kangaroo Court.

Manitoba - New Potential Looney Bin of Canada

Leadership Candidate Pledges To Go Down Weary UK Road

Manitoba NDP Leadership candidate Steve Ashton has pledged to bring in the Dignity Act if he becomes party leader and therefor Premier of the province.

The Winnipeg Sun reported it here.

He wants racist or other derogatory comments or behaviour to be an offence.

He said:

"I want to see Manitoba become a model for human rights," Ashton said. "We want a zero tolerance approach to racism and other forms of discrimination."

Ashton, who is totally out of touch with reality said he wants the bill to be based on the British Race Relations Act, which is a cause of great turmoil in the UK.

Although he is still working on the details, he said in a press release that it would:

"make employers, governments, unions, organizations and individuals in positions of authority responsible for promoting equality and improving race relations by eliminating unlawful discrimination, promoting equality of opportunity and promoting positive relations between people of different racial groups. The bill will also ensure similar provisions for gender and sexual orientation."

Mr. Ashton wants to go "one step further" than existing laws like the Manitoba Human Rights Code and the hate crime provisions of the Criminal Code, since Manitoba does not currently have a "likely to expose to hatred or contempt" clause like the one that is currently being struck down at the Canada HRC, and will fall in Alberta after the Boissoin decision.

As Mr. Ashton says:

"It's common sense. It's when you're inciting racial hatred, that will be the legal test," Ashton said. "The key to the future is getting along, working together, and putting aside some of the things we've seen in the past."

"I want to make sure we nip it in the bud."

I hope someone nips him in the bud. But, Mr. Ashton can be forgiven for his political posturing. He has been away for the last while camping out in the woods, I assume, away from contact with other human beings.

I am waiting for someone to put a test together for "likely to expose to hatred or contempt". If they can do that, then his "inciting racial hatred" should be a piece of cake. Apparently the black flies in Manitoba, where Mr. Ashton must have been camping carry some dread disease that addles the brain.

We have nuts on the left coast, and nuts in Ontario, some pretty wacky behaviour in La Belle Province, and now, looniness coming from Manitoba.

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

You Go Girl!!

Rebekah over at the Miss Marprelate Tracts has good things to say about being active in this crazy world, when sitting on your duff and doing nothing, meanwhile taking it up the wazoo (which should be mutually exclusive) is standard fare.

Go Bloggers!

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

Tweets from History

Chris Bentley is Much Smarter Than This

Here is a tweet from Ontario Attorney General Chris Bentley a few months back that just showed up in the Google Alerts this morning:

Human Rights speech. 1948 Hugh Burnett started 7 year struggle to be served in cafe. Led to Code. He was black. Must remain vigilant today.

Hugh Burnett was a black carpenter in Dresden Ontario. He was part of the National Unity Association formed in 1948, an anti-discrimination group to counter the refusal to serve blacks in restaurants and other stores.

The NUA was actively engaged in getting Premier Leslie Frost to to support passage of two pieces of legislation against discrimination the Fair Employment Practices Act, and the Fair Accommodation Practices Act.

However, discrimination in Dresden did not come to an end, so Burnett staged an illegal sit in at two restaurants in town. The NUA won, ending overt discrimination, but Burnett ended up leaving Dresden as people boycotted his business.

That's the history behind the Tweet of our Ontario AG. It was not the key factor in us getting a Human Rights Code in Ontario, though it was a contributing one. The case of Drummond Wren that I reported on some months back was also significant, because it affected another minority group, Jews.

His conclusion "Must be vigilant today" though is liberal as well as Liberal clap trap. That was then. This is now, and Barbara Hall vigilance is not my idea of a good thing.

Minister Bentley is my MPP, and a good man. He serves his electorate well. However, his Liberal ideology, as it relates to human rights in this province, puts blinders on him to the reality of where vigilance is required.

Calgary Herald Calls Stelmach to Cut S. 3 of HRCM Act

Asks: "Is the Tide of Canadian censorship finally starting to turn?"

The Calgary Herald notes that the Alberta HRC is back on its heals at the moment (my choice of word), due to recent court cases on free speech and backed off on the Herald/ Edmonton Journal Complaints for a 2002 editorial on the Middle East.

The article here cited the following:

The case involving the Herald and the Journal arose from an editorial published in April 2002, which catalogued several allegations of duplicity, manipulation, atrocity and hypocrisy on the part of Palestinian leaders in their dealings with Israel.

At the time, reports of terrorist activity came almost daily, interspersed with the late Yasser Arafat's protestations that all he wanted was peace: The matter was top of mind, and ripe for public examination. However, Muslim advocates complained that it was "likely to expose to hatred or contempt Palestinian Arabs and Muslims," though there was no proof of that whatsoever and it was certainly not the intent.

My bold. Telling statement that last one, and where the abuse of power of the HRCs is most profound. As I have stated in another piece, here, there are no boundaries or terms of reference for how one decides on "Likely to expose to hatred or contempt." It is all in the minds of the Complainant, and some bureaucrat with the appropriate HRC who takes up his cause.

If I tell you that something is likely to expose me to hatred and contempt, and you Mr. HRC employee believe me, we have a quorum of two, and it is now a fact, even if we are the only two people in the world who believe it. In these cases, that drag on forever, there is no effort to see if the particular offending materiel actually did expose anyone to hatred or contempt, where time is on the side of being able to categorically prove that it did or did not. At least, it would be if the whole phrase "likely to expose to hatred or contempt" were not just a throw away phrase with no possibility of being factually verified. People are having their lives turned upside down by this phrase in our country and have been for years. We didn't care when they were basement Nazi sympathisers, because they too were throw away members of our society, whose rights of free speech, even if they spoke stupidity and mindless hateful drivel, that no one but a few of their friends ever heard, were being denied.

Frankly, the HRCs got used to the taste of blood on "likely to expose to hatred and contempt", and as there was no real, fake Nazi blood around anymore, they had to get the blood lust slaked somewhere. So, what did you expect to happen? None of the cases that have happened in the last several years should come as a surprise to anyone in Canada.

Bad things happen, because good men say nothing. Edmund Burke did not say it, but he meant it.

This battle is not over. Here is the Herald conclusion:

It seems much has been won by the determined resistance of free-speech advocates, like this newspaper, to nationwide commission encroachments on a right to criticize people, organizations and governments that goes back in Canada at least to 1835, when Joseph Howe took on a corrupt provincial government, and won.

We salute them all, if not for their opinions in every case, at least in their tenacious defence of their right to publish them--a right that has cost so many of our best and brightest their very lives.

Premier Stelmach, when even your own human rights commission has changed its mind, you must act: Tear down the offensive section of Alberta's human rights law.

While the Herald is busy patting itself on the back for fighting the good fight, their role has been nominal. Those really fighting the good fight are those who can ill afford to fight it, the Stephen Boissoin's, Ezra Levant's, Alphonse De Valk's, Marc Lemire's, but must for their own sanity and for their beliefs, and the need to tell the truth that they know in their hearts.

The fat lady is far from singing on this issue.

Is This For Real?

H/T Blazing Cat Fur

Blazing Cat Fur has a link to a blog from someone purporting to be a mole inside the CHRC maybe. Is it true? Nothing that any of us can prove from what is on the blog yet, though Marc Lemire could attest to the veracity of it. I suggest that he not.

He/she calls himself "The Fairness Fairy (The Free Speech "Deep Throat")".

I am from Missouri, but am keeping my eyes open on this one.

Mandatory Retirement All But Gone

65 Not A Magic Number Anymore

An interesting article in Metronews.ca here puts some background into the recent Air Canada pilots case where 60 year old pilots fought for the right not to retire. The writer, Daniel Lublin reports on the dropping of mandatory ages in Canada, and the challenges that companies are having adapting and dealing with employees around this change.

This One Belongs at the Quebec Human Rights Commission

Mainly Because the Bureau Du Taxi de Montreal is Wonkier

ctv.ca reports that Jewish cab driver Arieh Perecowicz, a Montreal cab driver for over 43 years of his 65 years spent on the planet, is being harassed by the Bureau du Taxi with now 6 tickets for $1,400 because . . . wait for it . . . he has family photos and religious paraphernalia in his cab.

In the bureau du taxi's defence, the fines are a downgrade from their original position that Arieh should be hung. drawn and quartered. I just made that sentence up to see if you were reading.

So, for most of 43 years, these were not a problem. Now, they're a problem, and clearly a BIG problem to the bureau du taxi.

Here is the description of the offending materiel:

Like many cab drivers, Perecowicz spends a lot of time in his cab and keeps pictures of his family with him. The photos of his wife, daughter and son are well-secured on the dashboard and he says they are not a hazard to passengers since there is no way they could become loose.

Also on the dash are small Canadian and Israeli flags and a Remembrance Day poppy. Along with a photo of the founder of Chabad Lubavitch, a Hasidic Jewish movement, he also has two mezuzahs affixed to the car frame between the front and back doors.

Mezuzahs are tiny prayer parchments that are often posted over the door frames of Jewish homes. The prayer is said as one leaves the house in the belief it will help one return home safely.

M. Perecowicz is not your street corner dummy and says:

"I don't see how the city had the mandate and the power to step into something that is clearly, in my mind, a federal issue where the Charter does give us a right of freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of expression," Perecowicz said.

The Commission des Transports du Quebec, which governs cab drivers and other drivers for all of Quebec outside of Montreal, has also inspected his taxi and officials had no problem with the items in his car, he says.

Perecowicz took his complaint to the Quebec Human Rights Commission a few years ago, but the tickets have kept coming. The Commission has approved the file and is investigating.

Give 'em Sheol, sir.

Ezra Speaks Out

HWHNBNIMB Has Killed His Golden Goose

Ezra Levant has been too busy with his books to write about the schnooks that deceive us all in the name of protection of our Canadian Human Rights. But he raised his head enough to drop a few on He Who Will Not Be Named In My Blog, for his Maximum Disruption strategy, which as Ezra points out appears to have killed the goose that laid his golden eggs here.

As we await some official word on the Boissoin case at Alberta Court of Queen's Bench last week, which could put a more formal stake into the heart of Section 13, and its ugly fraternal twins in Alberta and a few of our other provinces, we should all remain vigilant. Abuse of our right to Free Speech is not the only Human Rights abuse being perpetrated on most of the population of this fair land by the HRCs/HRTs in the name of the few, with the special way they have of making these rights hierarchical, as well as mythical.

Denyse O'Leary Makes Us Think

Read Her Letter to Ezra

Over on her blog Post Darwinist, Denyse O'Leary a good Catholic girls with a good Irish name write some cool stuff. On Saturday morning she was feeling her oats and penned, well not penned really, a letter to Ezra Levant about Intellectual Freedom in Canada.

Read it here.

Over 'ome They are Whacked Out

Coming Soon to an HRC near You

I picked this up on Bookworm Room this morning.

Daily Mail Online in the UK reported:

A Christian couple have been charged with a criminal offence after taking part in what they regarded as a reasonable discussion about religion with guests at their hotel.

Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang were arrested after a Muslim woman complained to police that she had been offended by their comments.

They have been charged under public order laws with using ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words’ that were ‘religiously aggravated’.

The couple, whose trial has been set for December, face a fine of up to £5,000 and a criminal record if they are convicted.

Although the facts are disputed, it is thought that during the conversation the couple were challenged over their Christian beliefs.

It is understood that they suggested that Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was a warlord and that traditional Muslim dress for women was a form of bondage.

They deny, however, that their comments were threatening and argue that they had every right to defend and explain their beliefs.

What an interesting turn of events.

The article goes on to say:

The use by the police of the Public Order Act to arrest people over offensive comments has dismayed a number of lawyers, who say the legislation was passed to deal with law and order problems in the streets.

Neil Addison, a prominent criminal barrister and expert in religious law, said: ‘The purpose of the Public Order Act is to prevent disorder, but I’m very concerned that the police are using it merely because someone is offended.

‘It should be used where there is violence, yobbish behaviour or gratuitous personal abuse. It should never be used where there has been a personal conversation or debate with views firmly expressed.

‘If someone is in a discussion and they don’t like what they are hearing, they can walk away.’

He added that the police had a legal duty under the Human Rights Act to defend free speech ‘and I think they are forgetting that’.

Notice any similarities to the Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn cases with our HRCs in the last few years. Our Human Rights world in Canada is out of Control. In the UK, it is OUT OF CONTROL. I can see liberal zealots in Canada pushing for a Public Order Act, with Elmo behind them to nudge them along. Eh What!

Do You Think Rights Groups Might Be Wingnuts?

Shame on You Mr. Garlasco Or Not

Human Rights Watch has suspended it senior military analyst "pending an investigation" because a pro-Israel blog reported that he collects Nazi memorabilia.

KNnet.com licked up on the hot news from the New York Times Web Site, and had this to say:

Carroll Bogert of Human Rights Watch says Marc Garlasco is being suspended "pending an investigation." The suspension was first reported Monday by The New York Times on its Web site.

Bogert said Tuesday the organization knows that Garlasco collects German and American World War II memorabilia, but officials have questions about whether they've learned everything they need to know.

Garlasco's collection was revealed last week on Mere Rhetoric, a pro-Israel blog.

Bogert says Garlasco has never expressed any anti-Semitic views, and the group has no evidence that his hobby affected his analysis.

Just a question, but who's watching Mr. Garlasco's human rights? Probably nobody. He must be just a white guy, ie. got no rights, bottom of the food chain.

The Difference Between Visionaries and Nincompoops

Martin Luther King Jr. Was A Visionary. Our HRC's Not So Much

Martin Luther King Jr. gave one of the best speeches ever given just over 46 years ago, on August 26, 1963 in front of the Lincoln Memorial. Less than 5 years later, he would die for the ideals that he expressed in that speech, and lived for, and worked for. He put his money and his life, where his mouth was. I have not heard one thing from an HRC about human rights that inspires me to even remember it was said, without falling off my chair laughing myself silly.

It is largely the difference between someone who has been called to greatness, and someone who hides behind a government sinecure, pretending to greatness.

Martin Luther King Jr. had a Dream. Our HRC's give us nightmares.
Martin Luther King Jr. had a Vision. Our HRC's are nearsighted.
Martin Luther King Jr. spoke with clarity of purpose, and focus. Our HRC's make much ado about nothing.
Martin Luther King Jr. left a legacy that has lived on and borne great fruit after his passing. Our HRC's will leave disasters behind them that will take years to clean up.
Martin Luther King Jr. was a breath of fresh air on a spring morning. Our HRC's are more like the putrid air over rotting garbage.

Some people are born great. Some people achieve greatness. Some people have greatness thrust upon them. Some people just miss the boat.

The MLK "I have a Dream" speech is so profound that it deserves to be read again, and so I have reproduced it from here for you to enjoy once again:

Martin Luther King, Jr.

"I Have a Dream"

delivered 28 August 1963, at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington D.C.

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

We cannot walk alone.

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead.

We cannot turn back.

There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: "For Whites Only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."¹

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. And some of you have come from areas where your quest -- quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."²

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.

With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,

From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.

Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.

Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.

Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.

But not only that:

Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!³

Instant Replay 3 - I'm Feeling a Little Discrimination Today

Fix That Please Ms. HRC

I was born in 1950. My father was a Spitfire pilot in the Big War, and came back home in the mid 40's somewhat physically disabled, before that was understood. He had married my mother before he went, and she worried her way through the war, as many others did. Her father , though aged, served in the merchant marine during the war, giving her and her own mother more to worry over. As well, my grandfather, being of Irish descent, had a fondness as many do for the drink. He wasn't an alcoholic officially, because he didn't go to meetings, but he could have qualified. In an alcoholic household suppression of expression of emotions, particularly those that could be considered to be negative becomes the rule of the day because you cannot risk offending the potentially volatile alcoholic. My mother was the second of 3 daughters, and it usually happens in the families of alcoholics that the middle child also becomes an enabler.

So, my parents settled in London where my father went to university and started to work in a small business he ran from the house, before that was fashionable. In 1950 I was born and my sister came along in 1953. That makes me ... old, and my sister ... oldish. Our lives seemed normal to us, because it was the only ones that we knew. Here's where the enabler part of our mother kicks in. Our father's health deteriorated, and he spent considerable time in the veteran's hospital here in London, no in and out in a day like now. For us as kids, life was confusing without our dad, and our mother basically taught us not to feel our emotions. She had many tools at hand, shame being a particularly good one. I remember particularly this one that she hit us with. We were raised in a Catholic home so she would say to us: "Anger is a sin. Good Catholic boys and girls don't get angry." Wow! What a heavy burden for little kids to bear.

The point is that I entered adulthood and up until the last few years or so had very immature emotions. My wife on the other hand, has a strongly developed emotional maturity. Boy, did we clash, until I finally got it.

Life for me was very fact based, or so I thought. I remember saying to her during one battle we had almost 7 years ago: "Don't give me this emotional Bull Sh?t. Give me some facts." At the time she called me an arrogant a??hole, and she was right.

If I was going to have a better life, and have a marriage at all, I had to get in touch with my emotions. I had no idea what I really felt about anything. It took a ton of therapy for me to get to a place where I understand where emotions come into the fabric of my life, and what part they play in my decision making on a day to day basis. I realised a lot of things about feelings that I believe are important for me, and significant in this whole HRC situation we find ourselves in today.

Because I was not in touch with my emotions, they were actually running my life. So, here I was telling my wife I wanted facts, when I was angry as h?ll, and could not even realise it, and that was driving me at the moment. Go Figure Eh!

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China? Nothing. But, it has a lot to do with the cost of discrimination in Canada.

Here is what I learned. What I feel about anything is my choice. Two of us look at the same sunset. I feel great joy at the beauty of God's creation. You feel sad that the day is over. Is one of us wrong? No, just different.

Two men find a Nazi internet site and read scurrilous drivel denying the holocaust. One feels that he is discriminated against and files an HRC complaint. The other feels sadness only, and goes on with his life.

An 8 year old black boy in Grade 5 in Ontario steals $6 from the principal's desk and confesses to it in writing, and the principal disciplines him with detention in her office. One parent feels anger that her son has been discriminated against for some reason that defies logic to everyone but her and her local HRC, and so she files a complaint with the HRC. A similar parent is saddened by the behaviour of her child and disciplines the child at home further to ensure that this behaviour is never repeated again.

A Pastor writes a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate about the Homosexual Agenda in the school system, and one teacher gets angry and holds onto this anger and files a complaint with the Alberta HRC. EGALE, who has a real dog in the fight if there were to be one reads the letter, dislikes the content, but calmly dismisses it as a right of free speech.

The problem that I have with the cases I have studied is that they are almost all based more on feelings than on hard data, and the HRCs are finding people guilty of hurting other people's feelings. Well, here is a fact for you HRC folks out there that I taught my kids even before I knew it myself. My kids would come to me and say: "She hurt my feelings." A very popular thing to say in this day and age, I guess. My response is and was: "Nobody can hurt your feelings. Your feelings are hurt. You own that."

Why does it matter if Stephen Boissoin said that the Homosexual Agenda in the school system is wicked? Certainly not because it hurt Darren Lund's feelings, or because it might cause somebody to feel hate, because his words can't make someone feel hate. Give me a break.

For the last several years, the HRCs have been called the "thought police". I think that is a misnomer. I think they are more elusive than that. I think they are the "emotion police."

Victory?

No and Yes

Here is what Member Hadjis says in the first sentence of his conclusion in the Lemire Case the other day:

I have determined that Mr. Lemire contravened s. 13 of the Act in only one of the
instances alleged by Mr. Warman, namely the AIDS Secrets article.

In other words, that says to me, that Mr. Lemire is guilty of one count out of the several he was charged with. It's pretty clear up to this point. But it does get muddy in the next sentence here:

However, I have also concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The restriction imposed by these provisions is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter. Since a formal declaration of invalidity is not a remedy available to the Tribunal (see Cuddy Chicks Ltd. V. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5), I will simply refuse to apply
these provisions for the purposes of the complaint against Mr. Lemire and I will not issue any remedial order against him (see Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin, 2003 SCC 54 at paras. 26-7).

All this says to me is Member Hadjis ducked and jived his way past this by saying guilty, but I have a way to not fine him, so I won't.

And Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn and all the other Speechies out there jumped on the "Hadjis is a hail fellow well met NOW" band wagon and declared victory for free speech. I am as optimistic as the next guy, and I have had a little more book learning than the average guy, and I also have a little more time on my hands to look at nuances than most.

I heard Marc Lemire on the radio the other night (delayed) celebrating this victory, and have read what Ezra has said about this, as well as Mark Steyn and everybody else. While everybody is clapping themselves on the back for a job well done, and taking the pause that refreshes, and while the comments come on to the blog posts about this great victory, J Ly and her CHRC and CASHRA cronies are figuring out their next strategic moves to protect their turf. She has already shown that she gets mean when you mess with her green.

Even this moral victory, since that is all it is factually, would never have come about without the tireless work of people like Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn denormalizing the human rights industry for the sham that it is, and for bloggers coming onside with them, and for some of the media and more as time passes joining is as well. But there is so much more to be done.

So, get back to work. This ain't over. In fact, it has hardly started. Tear this decision apart, and figure out what it really means. Then, support Stephen Boissoin in his real case coming up at the Alberta Court of Queens Bench this month.

Love Described

A Perspective on Love

I met a Jewish Psychologist in London, Ontario today, Doctor Peter Cobrin. That he is Jewish, or a Psychologist specifically is neither here nor there, though both have had an influence on the wisdom that he carries with him on his daily walk.

He told me in our discussion that he has been writing a book on Love, which I hope he publishes, because I would like to read it from what he said to me about it.

He spoke of love in terms of a delicate balance between power and vulnerability, akin to gravity, which does not so much pull the earth to the sun, but holds it in place where it has found its appropriate home. So, loving oneself, is about balancing one's own power and one' own vulnerability, while loving others is about balancing one's own power and vulnerability with that of another. I pondered that in relation to the ebb and flow of my own relationship with my wife and thought that it was a relevant metaphor, and that it could be built upon to better understand loving relationships.

One, of course does not write a book about one's life's work without going deeper than a paragraph, and in fact Dr. Cobrin synthesized it into two sentences for me at the time. Our time was short and we had other matters to discuss, so I did not get the opportunity to delve deeper with him into the mystery of love as he understood it. I am sure that it would have been an interesting discussion. I cannot even guarantee that what I wrote above is correct.

But, here is what is interesting to me most of all. Human beings are designed to love one another. Dr. Cobrin has discovered an aspect of that loving that is interesting to understand. Love is about free choices. Using Dr. Cobrin's balance of power and vulnerability, how I choose to use them both is up to me, using free will.

The government cannot regulate that, no matter how hard they try to so do. In fact, the government with its meddling ways gives us new forms of power that we can exert if we choose. For example, if my feelings are hurt, and I qualify as part of a special interest group, I can choose to file a human rights complaint against the alleged source of my hurt feelings. That's exerting power. On the other hand, I can allow myself to feel my hurt, and be vulnerable to it, and do nothing, or even stretch myself, and share my vulnerability, if I feel safe enough, with what I think is the source of my hurt feelings. Both of these alternatives of course deny that I am the source of my own feelings, and I have chosen to have them, which was not in fact a requirement in the circumstance.

It seems to me that filing a human rights complaint might more often be an act of powerful violence to oneself and to the Respondent, than an act of vulnerability to oneself. In all likelihood, at least in the cases that I have read, it is not a case of self love.

I think to the Jim Corcoran Form 1 for example. If he had looked through his hurt feelings, and thought of what he was about to do next in response to his hurt feelings, as an ultimate act of love, how would he have balanced power and vulnerability?

I wonder what his response would have been.