Unity or Equality

Which would you Prefer? Give me Unity

I have pondered many things of late, due to my interest in the Human Rights conundrum that exists here in Canada. What is going on here is diametrically opposed to my own Christian beliefs, and I have been trying to reconcile the apparent good intentions of those working in this human rights business and the truth as I understand it, to see if I can make sense of it.

Yesterday, my wife and I traveled to Stratford for a day and night away from London. So, this morning we found ourselves with the opportunity to attend mass in St. Joseph's Parish, a beautiful and very old church that overlooks much of downtown Stratford. Fr. Tom Ferrera gave a beautiful homily about unity, and something clicked for me.

I realised that our government and our HRCs are all trying to get us to be equal with one another. We are not equal and will never be equal. Heck, even in my own home, my wife can't pee standing up, and I can't carry a baby. Our plumbing is different, so we can never be equal. But, as well, I know my wife well enough to know that no matter how hard I try, I cannot feel things as deeply as she can, though I have deep feelings, and she, on the other hand can never have managed our flood restoration project recently as well as I did, because she is not made that way either. We cannot be equal no matter how our governments mandate equality. Objectively it is not possible.

But Fr. Tom gave an example of unity from 1997, in the martyrdom of 40 Tutsi and Hutu seminarians in Burundi. On April 30, shortly after a wonderful Easter, soldiers came intent on killing the Tutsi's that were at the seminary. When they asked the seminarians to separate into their tribes, they would not do it. So, they slaughtered them all. They chose not to be equal, but to be united, in life and above all in death.

Equality says that what's yours is mine, and I don't have to earn it, I have a right to it, particularly if I am from a protected group, which in fact makes me more equal than you. So, in fact equality is not about being equal, but is about being more equal, or about balancing and rebalancing the scales from time to time, based on subjective review of where the scales are at any point in time. This subjective review is really called political pressure. Watch it at work, as the forces of the Official Jews and the CIC and others push for the Appeal of the Lemire Decision. So, equality is really about agenda.

Unity is about being unique, but sharing our uniqueness with each other, even unto death, if necessary. Unity is how we approach the divine, bringing ourselves as we are before God, giving our gifts and our weaknesses for the betterment of ourselves and our society and the world.

Give me unity. You can keep your equality.

Here is the actual story of the Seminarian martyrs taken directly from a part of this blog entry by Dom Donald. The blog also references a French book detailing the murder: LES QUARANTE JEUNE MARTYRS DE BUTA, BURUNDI 1997: Frere a la Vie, a la Mort.

God is good and we have met Him. --The Martyrs of the Christian Fraternity d. 30 April 1997

The isolated, mountainous country of Burundi, often called "the Switzerland of Africa," has been the scene of some of Africa's bitterest ethnic violence, a spillover from the genocide in neighboring Rwanda. At about 5:30 in the morning of April 30, 1997, armed invaders allegedly from the Hutu rebel group CNDD (the National Council for the Defence of Democracy) attacked the Roman Catholic Seminary at Buta, killing forty young seminarians between the ages of fifteen and twenty. Since the beginning of the country's most recent civil war in October 1993, the seminary in the country's south had been a tranquil refuge for members of the two warring ethnic groups. The pastoral Hutu and more nomadic Tutsi have been locked in deadly genocidal war since 1972.

The seminarians themselves had made a special point of living in a Christian fraternity, where love of Christ was more important than ethnic origins. They had just completed an Easter season retreat before their massacre. Fr. Nicolas Niyungeko, rector of the Sanctuary of Buta in the Diocese of Bururi, wrote of the seminarians:

At the end of the retreat, this class was enlivened by a new kind of spirit, which seemed to be a preparation for the holy death of these innocents. Full of rejoicing and joy, the word in their mouths was "God is good and we have met Him." They spoke of heaven as if they had just come from it, and of the priesthood as if they had just been ordained .... One realized that something very strong had happened in their heart, without knowing exactly what it was. From that day on, they prayed, they sang, they danced to church, happy to discover, as it were, the treasure of Heaven.

The following day, when the murderers surprised them in bed, the seminarians were ordered to separate into two groups, the Hutus on one hand, the Tutsi on the other. They wanted to kill some of them, but the seminarians refused, preferring to die together. Their evil scheme having failed, the killers rushed on the children and slaughtered them with rifles and grenades. At that point some of the seminarians were heard singing psalms of praise and others were saying "Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do." Others, instead of fighting or trying to run away, preferred helping their distressed brothers, knowing exactly what was going to happen to them

Their death was like a soft and light path from their dormitory to another resting place, without pain, without noise, nor fear. They died like Martyrs of the Fraternity, thus honouring the Church of Burundi, where many sons and daughters were led astray by hatred and ethnic vengeance.[1]

Forty days after the massacre, the small seminary dedicated its church to Mary, Queen of Peace, and it has since, according to Fr. Niyungeko, "become a place of pilgrimage where Burundians come to pray for the reconciliation of their people, for peace, conversion, and hope for all. May their testimony of faith, unity, and fraternity send a message for humankind and their blood become a seed for peace in our country and the world."

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.

Ezra Levant Breaks Silence, CHRC Breaks Wind

He's Back, On His Game, But I Don't Totally Agree with All His Conclusions

Much of my introduction to the Human Rights Holocaust in Canada came at the hands of Ezra Levant. I started to get interested because, as I have written before, a friend of mine was being hounded here in Ontario, and I thought there was something wrong. Ezra and Kathy Shaidle came to London and along with Salim Mansur discussed the insanity that is the human rights racket in this fair land. I bought both "Shakedown" and Kathy Shaidle and Pete Vere's book "The Tyrrany of Nice", and read them cover to cover in no time, and then got going on my own, looking into this nonsense. And here I am.

Ezra came out of seclusion from writing his next book yesterday to go on the radio (would like to hear that, but missed it) and to write this piece on his blog.

It carries with it Ezra's knowledge of the history and nuance of the battle and I recommend you read it before you go further with anything I have to say.

But, what Ezra had said earlier in December about Section 13 and the Supreme Court take on it in Taylor in 1990 bears repeating:

Section 13 -- the censorship provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act -- has been before the Supreme Court of Canada already. In 1990, John Ross Taylor, then 80 years old, appealed his section 13 conviction all the way to the SCC. The seven judges split, four saying the law was constitutional, three (including Beverly McLachlin, now the Chief Justice of the SCC) saying it was unconstitutional.

But the four who let section 13 slide were strict about its application. Here's what they wrote in their judgment (I've bolded a few key words):

In sum, the language employed in s. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act extends only to that expression giving rise to the evil sought to be eradicated and provides a standard of conduct sufficiently precise to prevent the unacceptable chilling of expressive activity. Moreover, as long as the Human Rights Tribunal continues to be well aware of the purpose of s. 13(1) and pays heed to the ardent and extreme nature of feeling described in the phrase "hatred or contempt", there is little danger that subjective opinion as to offensiveness will supplant the proper meaning of the section.

Take a look a that just for a moment.

Three judges said the law was illegal. Four said it was legal, but only if it remained focused on truly evil hatred, that was ardent and extreme. Subjective opinions about offensiveness weren't permitted -- and, said those four judges confidently, there was little danger of that happening.

But, here is how I commented on Ezra's blog to his piece:
"Actually Ezra, the way I read this Decision J Ly won this one by a nose, or as they say in Hockey parlance, in a shootout, in what was the longest match in history.

Hadjis did find Lemire guilty of posting the Aids piece, though he had no part in its authorship, or I think in its actual publication, just being the webmaster. That much of it happens to be true, and that the intention was to provide information was no defence, as he himself had reported Fothergill had testified a year ago at trial in his own blog. How you decide that something subjects people you don't know to hatred is beyond me.

Hadjis did fail to award the Gold to J Ly and to Warman which is some solace to us all, but leaves the game far from over.

I believe that you were the prime reporter a few months back the the Queen of Censors was pushing for more teeth to S.13. That should have been the "tell" that this decision was coming as it did.

Hadjis also forgot to admonish those who stole Ms. Hechme's internet services and the other fake, pretend nazis, as opposed to the real pretend nazis who were on Stormfront before the government pretenders went lurking. Oh, forgot to admonish. He forgot to even mention them.

In my book, Mr. Hadjis did a very good CYA under difficult circumstances. He still managed to pull an HRC rabbit out of the hat. It is tiny, though and might not live very long, but he still pulled it out, fortunately on the slowest news day in the slowest news time of the year. What a coincidence."

The political nuance of this move is slowly dawning on me. It appears to me that J Ly gave a sneak preview of this months ago when she was talking about more power in S.13 to stamp out hate. It did not make particular sense to me at the time, but with this decision, it now makes perfectly good sense to me. The ink just didn't dry on Tuesday evening. The ink was dry on this Decision months ago, folks. What better time to slip this ugly thing past the people than the week before back to school, when everybody is getting in the last gasp of summer holidays, and getting kids ready for school.

As Ezra pointed out, there are choices that the AG, Rob Nicholson has in front of him. If not him, then his boss the PM. Ezra said:

Will Rob Nicholson, the Justice Minister, send his lawyers to appeal? If he does so, he risks a backlash within his own party’s base, on the eve of an election. But it is not acceptable for him to stand back, while his lackey, Jennifer Lynch, sends her CHRC lawyers in for the appeal. It’s essential that Nicholson – or the PMO, if Nicholson lacks the political judgment – orders Jennifer Lynch to stand down. (Frankly, it’s staggering that she hasn’t yet been ordered to just shut up and get on with her job as a bureaucrat. Seriously, as Peter O’Neil reported the other day, Lynch flew all the way to Dublin, Ireland, to beg for political help, admitting that her campaign to demonize her opponents, collect names on her enemies list and save her censorship powers “monopolizes our energy”. Why is she not fired yet?)

Ezra says "Today is definitely a day to celebrate." Me, I'm not so sure. I don't yet see anything to hang my hat on. I do know that this day would not have come without the hard work of Marc Lemire on the front line, and Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant, and the bloggers and others out there stirring the pot to keep this this alive, but I will repeat like a broken record, this has not been tested in a real court, so I am waiting on Boissoin v. Lund at Alberta Court of Queens Bench before I get into a celebratory mood.

I wonder if Marc Lemire has any money left to celebrate, and if after reading this Decision, he is really in the mood YET.

Update:

Okay, I was looking at a few blogs and picked up on GenX40 who is a legal beagle with a good eye on this Decision, and I refer you to his post here. He implies that I am being too tight in my britches, and maybe I am. He says: "it is a good day to admire your country and your constitution. Enjoy it."

The Funeral

Nonsense When Other Things Make No Sense

As a bagpiper, I was asked by a funeral director to play at a graveside service for a homeless man who had no family or friends. The funeral was to be held at a cemetery in the remote countryside and this man would be the first to be laid to rest there.

As I was not familiar with the backwoods area, I became lost and being a typical man, did not stop for directions. I finally arrived an hour late. I saw the backhoe and the crew who were eating lunch, but the hearse was nowhere in sight.

I apologized to the workers for my tardiness and stepped to the side of the open grave where I saw the vault lid already in place. I assured the workers I would not hold them up for long but this was the proper thing to do. The workers gathered around, still eating their lunch.

I played out my heart and soul. As I played the workers began to weep. I played and I played like I'd never played before, from Going Home and The Lord is My Shepherd to Flowers of the Forest. I closed the lengthy session with Amazing Grace and walked to my car.

As I was opening the door and taking off my coat, I overheard one of the workers saying to another, "Sweet Mother of Jesus, I ain't never seen nothin' like that before and I've been putting in septic tanks for twenty years."

Lemire - A Narrow Hate Crime Win for the Canadian HRC

Longest Game in Hate Crime History Decided in a Shootout

Okay, I really was excited to get up this morning and read about how Athanasios Hadjis, writing on behalf of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, that august independent protector of our human rights had descended from the mount, or wherever they keep the Kool Aid, with his tablets of stone and had come down hard on the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its employees and associates.

But, then I awoke and actually got up, had a coffee, and went to my computer. And, as it always is, truth is stranger than fiction. I tried to work my way through the over 100 pages of the Decision, much of which was a regurgitation of what happened at trial, except that it was a sanitization of what happened. There was no mention of some of the very special testimony where some of the people under oath made such famous statements as :

"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value … It's not my job to give value to an American concept."

That would be Dean Steacy, the Canadian HRC investigator. Forgotten was the wardriving use of a neighbours internet connection without her consent, and of course the postings on Stormfront to try and entrap both of the alleged Nazi supporters in Canada, who pose such a threat to our great nation.

What was not forgotten of course was testimony by Mr. Fothergill of the Attorney General of Canada where he said:

“It’s very difficult to construct an entirely truthful statement that constitutes hate, but there might be a context. Truth is not a defence and intent is not a defence, but they are irrelevant to the effects and effects are what matters in human rights legislation."

Marc Lemire had documented this on his blog at the time of the testimony, and it surprises me that it almost made it in lock, stock and barrel into the Decision. Way to go Mr. Fothergill. You and J. Ly both have Hadjis in your pocket, sorta.

So, in the end, and it's not really the end, just the end of the beginning, the Canadian HRC won in a shoot out. Member Hadjis found Marc Lemire guilty of one count of contravention of S. 13 for the publication of the Aids Secrets article. It doesn't matter that a lot of the information in that article may be true. It apparently subjects blacks and gays to hate. It also doesn't matter that Lemire didn't post it himself. He was the webmaster. It also doesn't matter that the offending article was taken off the website in reasonably short order when there was a complaint. It also didn't matter that some of the material that had been subject of the complaint was still available on over 300 other web sites world wide, mostly in Canada, when it was no longer on Mr. Lemire's site.

But, in the end Member Hadjis refused to award the trophy to Complainant Warman and the CHRC, as he then:

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.

This sounds fine, but Member Hadjis is off the reservation making this call, since his responsibility is the Canadian Human Rights Act. That call about the constitutionality of some or all of it is for a real court to make.

Worse still, are things noted by Scary Fundamentalist here:

But Hadjis’s decision includes affirmation for some of the ugliest aspects of section 13. Line [239] bastardizes Section 15 of the Charter (equality before the law) to justify controlling everyday speech in the name of equality. Line [247] maintains that Section 13, while contravening the Charter, is still a proportionate tool for an appropriate objective. In line [291], it is upheld that truth is not a defence. Line [290] argues that lack of intent is not a defence, unless the respondent immediately kowtows to the demands of the complainant.

Bottom line is Marc Lemire got off with a light tap on the wrist, in what should have been a shutout for him. He was robbed, and so were we all. This is far from over.

On September 16-17, 2009 a real court in Alberta hears a real case, the Appeal of the Boissoin Decision from the Alberta HRC on the sister law Alberta S. 3(1). Maybe something good will happen there.

Instant Replay 2 - Is There a Bottom to this Pit?

Regrettably The Answer is No

When I wrote this a few months back, the 2007-2008 Ontario HRC annual report was the most current report. Since then, of course, there has been a new block buster annual report, and some commentary including mine has come out. That does not however make any of the following less current or pertinent, or even dated, as the new report is really more of the same old, same old. You know, dates changed, names changed, targets changed, new victims, new invented rights. SSDD.


Many years ago, when my life was not what my Mother wanted it to be, she prayed that God would hit me over the head with a baseball bat. Well, 5 years ago, he let me get hit in the head by a 1994 Ford Aerostar van. He showed her who was boss, didn't he.

So, everyday I have these headaches and brain fogs, but in between I have these few hours of clarity of emotion and mental thought. Until today, I have cursed the headaches, because I would like to get back to doing more with my life. Having devoted what energy I have had available recently to looking into the sick joke in our society that is the Human Rights Commissions in Canada, I have realised that my headaches are a blessing. Without the headaches, I would spend more time beating my head against a brick wall trying to figure out the insanity of this whole thing, that is really nothing more than a hammer in search of a nail or more accurately a bulldozer in search of the next mountain to move, whether it needs it or not.

Yesterday, I thought maybe I was being too harsh, and so I went to the Ontario HRC web site to try and get their perspective on things. What better way methinks, than to look at their latest annual report for 2007-2008, and read about all the good things that they are doing.

Right there on the first page it said "Printed on recycled paper", and went downhill from there. I downloaded it in PDF format to my computer so did not get the full benefit of the recycled paper, but gave them the benefit of the doubt.

It was in reading the annual report that I came across how they screwed over Viola Landry and the Popeye Restaurant in Geraldton Ontario, and how her former employee, Ms. Giguere had tried to bribe someone to testify against Ms. Landry to the Commission. Are you people nuts? Why would you put that in your annual report? Didn't you do anything better with your time, and my money?

Oh, but you did, didn't you, you sneaky Devils. You reported that in the Lepovsky V. TTC case that you got the TTC to call out all stops on all transit vehicles because Mr. Lepovsky is blind. I have very seldom ever seen a visually impaired person on the TTC, but I am sure glad that we don't require them to think any more or perish the thought to ask for help, or even worse that a TTC employee (like a driver) might offer to assist them. Instead the TTC installed these fancy shmancy Call Out systems, and then raised fares, of course.

But, it does not end there. Hot on the heels of this success (excess), our friends at the Ontario HRC wrote this in their annual report:

"With this precedent in place, the Commission is working to expand call-outs across Ontario. The recent Tribunal decision shows that a policy of announcing stops only upon request is not enough — the only way to ensure an accessible system is to call out all stops."

Are you kidding me? Please read to the bottom. They did not stop there.

"In a letter to operators across Ontario, the Commission asked transit services to review their accessibility policies and practices and inform the Commission on the steps they were taking to make sure all transit stops were announced. The Commission is reporting publicly in May 2008, and will then consider its next steps. Its goal is to have the effect of the Tribunal’s decisions applied across Ontario, and make sure the duty to accommodate riders with disabilities is respected."

I live in London, Ontario. Our transit system is far less efficient than the TTC, not because of anything wrong particularly at the LTC, but mainly because of the size of the city. In the smaller centres, the drivers know the handicapped people, and make an effort to assist them. That is the nature of living in smaller locales. The last thing we need outside Toronto is some morons from the Ontario HRC decreeing that the Human Rights of disabled persons, of which I am one, are being ignored because the transit systems need to spend money on Call Out systems. When you bump the fares in smaller centres, ridership drops.

I have a little conundrum for Ms. Hall and her cronies. I am a disabled person because I have a brain injury. As such, I am particularly susceptible to noise. I have been in Toronto a number of times recently to see medical practitioners, and to visit family. While there my preference is to take the TTC, since I get confused occasionally, and do not wish to have an accident. Before Call Outs, The subway trains had a route map above the doors on each car in the train. Now, not so much. Because of all the hubbub in the subway system, I had to frequently refer to the map and my current location to know where I was in relation to where I had to get to. Now, I can't always do that, and so it is more stressful for me to ride the subway. Also, in part of my travels, I often take a bus, and having to listen to the automated voice calling out each street that we pass causes me confusion and anxiety.

So, Ms. Hall, you took a bulldozer to the visually impaired Mr. Lepovsky's impairment. Got any bright ideas of how to integrate that with mine. I don't intend to give you the chance.

Ah!!! The Law of Unintended Consequences. I agree with Ezra Levant more every day, and I quote him: "Fire. Them. All."

Go Back to Harvard Iggy

We don't need no Stinking Election

This annual election thing is getting boring. Iggy trotted out his chestnut that Harper had caused all of the nation's ills, and it is time to let him go. Wrong boyo. It is time to let you go. If the nation gets another election, I hope it happens in time for you to make it back to Harvard for the winter term.

Please, people of Canada, give us a Conservative majority. This minority nonsense is going on forever and it is too hard to get anything done with all of these pretenders to the throne claiming to be driving the bus.

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.

Christian Home Schooling - Is That the Issue?

Maybe Not

Friend Scary Fundamentalist from BC picked up on this juicy morsel from over here on the east side of the Northern Hemisphere, in downtown Meredith, NH.

Martin Kurowski married Brenda Voydatch and they had a daughter Amanda in Massachusetts. The mother moved to New Hampshire with her daughter prior to 2002, where the divorce was registered. There is no evidence to suggest that she moved to New Hampshire because the Kennedy's wouldn't leave Mass.

The mother has conscientiously home schooled her daughter with state approved texts since grade 1, and she is now ten years old and is described as "well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level", which is often typical of home schooled children who have the benefit of one on one attention.

The parents had entered into a parenting plan that is the source of the problems basically as the father and mother disagree on home schooling, among other things. The parenting plan called for mediation in the event of disagreement. Because the parents could not come to an agreement, this came before the Court and with a Guardian ad litem in tow, the Court issued the order here.

The order has plenty of detail worth reading. Amanda was a very conscientious student, and had to bug her father to take his responsibility seriously when he was the custodial parent, so conscientious is she. The mother was diligent in getting the materials, ensuring that she understood her job, and in making sure that Amanda not only did her work, but also was socialized appropriately by attending some classes at the local public school, but also by doing other activities like piano lessons. I ask: What's the problem, huh?

There is strain between the two parents which is rubbing off on the daughter probably. It always does. Amanda's mother seemed to be trying to limit contact with Amanda's father and sought counselling to prove the point. But the tables got turned somewhat as Amanda has a strong faith, which a counsellor had trouble grasping, and called rigidity. The counsellor figured Amanda should spend time with her half sibling with Dad more for socialization, which probably made Mom see red.

But, there is a real rigidity to Mom that colours things to her perspective, and does not come out in the Court Order that makes me wonder what the truth really is. The things I read in articles about the case make me wonder if this is a hill to die on.

Pages 2-8 of the Court Order are good reading, and leave me with the thoughts that the Marital Master is a very thoughtful man, intent on doing the right thing here, and caught between a rock and a hard place.

There is nothing in the world I care about more than my Christian faith. Next to that there is nothing I care about more than the salvation of my loved ones. Over the years I have learned that caring about their salvation is best acted out by loving them where they are at, no matter how far they are from a Christian walk (as I see it), but loving them no less for where they are, without condemnation.

The sense I get from reading this case information is that on one side we have a real Scary Fundamentalist, not like friend SF out west, but a real died in the wool one, who none the less loves her daughter, and wants the best for her. On the other hand, we have a father who also loves his daughter, and wants the best for her, but wants his daughter out of the hands of her mother for more hours of the day, to open her eyes to the rest of the world.

There is more to this case than what's on the surface, folks. The noise being made is not what the real case is about. It is being blown out of proportion.

Not a hill to die on.