|
|
ABC news presenter Virginia Haussegger saw a burqa at the mall and she didn’t like it. So she is suggesting that Oz follow the French lead and ban the burqa. Interesting comments but my favorite was this one:
Easy one. It’s a free country. No bans on burqas. And no bans on refusing to serve / sell to / accommodate in any way people who wear burqas; or bans on signs in the shop window: “We want to see your money AND your face.”
The khufar doesn’t have to interact with someone she doesn’t like the look of, and the burqee can decide for herself whether impersonating a Guinness bottle is worth the attendant hassle of having to travel 15 miles to find somebody who’ll sell her groceries,
No state-enforced bans at all, and everything works. thornbrocket
We have no trouble with “no shoes, no shirt, no service”.
The problem is that the burqa wearers (volunteers all and pay no attention to that honour killing thing…made up by islamophobic racists) want to wear the body bags and be treated with the respect accorded to non-sack wearers. And, sadly, there are plenty of institutions in Canada which would be willing to use the full force of the law to enforce such treatment.
Which is why, if we really think about it, if a chap comes to the immigration desk at a Canadian embassy somewhere and he is trailing a gaggle of gals (maybe) in sacks the immigration officer should immediately state that no interviews are undertaken with people in bags. that would have at least the effect of reducing the number of people immigrating who are culturally unsuited to Canada.
(I should add that there are several excellent comments from Umm Yasmin who has almost persuaded me to trade in Susan’s corsets for a burqa. I am sure my guide in all things esoterically erotic, Skippy Stalin, will agree this is just hot:
I did not wear the Afghan burqa, but I did wear what we call ‘niqab’ which is the face veil that leaves a slit for the eyes. Sometimes I wore coloured niqabs, other times a black one that had a transparent black overveil that could hide my eyes but allow me to see out. I very much enjoyed the privacy of it, and would most likely choose to wear it more often if I could. virginia haussegger
The Ontario Provincial Police hate crimes and extremism unit had been investigating Salman Hossain – whose writings included a call to kill Western soldiers “so that they think twice before entering foreign countries on behalf of their Jew masters” – for willfully promoting hatred toward the Jewish community, but the case was recently closed.
“The OPP reviewed the case with Crown counsel. As a result of that review, it was determined that insufficient grounds existed to support willful promotion of hatred charges,” said Detective-Sergeant Brent Young. national post
If you have the “right” last name you can say this
“Here’s what I suggest we do … just throw out the Jews (by religion or blood) out of the instruments of mainstream media, finance/banking, government/politics, and the intelligence/secret services.”
“That’s how the Muslims have done it in the past, especially when they were in power and glorious. Leave behind the token Jew here and there just to appear non-discriminatory.
“Then send the Jews packing on a different ship to their own territory or maybe the South Pole to live with the penguins. Do this before they claim we gonna do another ‘holocaust.’ There’s no Jew better than an exile Jew.”
on the internet and the coward Lynch as well as the Ontario Crown will give you a pass. (Though, to be fair, Bernie or Lucy or the Lying Jackal may at this very moment be preparing a complaint against Mr. Hossain.)
The general point made by Scaramouche and BCF is that because hate speech laws are not about any actual crime they are applied selectively and little bigots like Salman Hossain can promulgate hate with impunity while the less fortunately surnamed are arbitrarily hauled before Commissions or the Courts.
It is far better to have no law than a law which is administered in a discriminatory manner.
Re. Obama and gay people…
Furthermore, he did it with an opposition Congress during an election year. He also did it when those forces were facing hundreds of thousands of nuclear-armed communists across the German plain, who were generally accepted to be a whole lot more dangerous than some disorganized jihadis.
And blacks then were a whole lot more unpopular than gays are now. This brings us to another wartime president, Lincoln. He ended slavery, which was actually written into the Constitution, all by himself. So please spare me this horseshit about “hard work” and “changing hearts”, okay? It only makes you look like a moron.
You know what would make me smile? If Barack Obama would actually look the homos in the eye, treat them like adults, and finally say; “You know what? You’re between 1 and 10% of the population, depending on Lindsay Lohan’s mood. More people hate you than not, and I need them to vote for me more than I need you. How many fags do you think there are in Indiana? skippy stalin
Hope, change…my Obama! (Think, “My Sharona“)
Which takes us back to the rules: Black beats white. Gay beats white. Black beats gay.
The general public has taken note and, in showing solidarity with the Black Eyed Peas, has retroactively displayed displeasure with Mr. Lavandeira’s reprehensible actions toward the beauty contestant as well as his countless other offenses. andrew breitbart
I am not a huge fan of the punch in the eye to settle differences but if ever a man needed bullwhipping Peres Hilton is that man. Now, in our pomo age a plain ol’whiteguy would have been fag bashing; but it gets a bit ambiguous when the trash is beaten down by a black man he has insulted. It shouldn’t; but it does.
Roll on PC.
Good for the Tyee for printing Terry Glavin’s well sourced excoriation of the left and Iran. (And yes Dawg, I am still waiting for your first post.)
“After Venezuela’s president and left-wing icon Hugo Chavez rushed to Ahmadinejad’s side with regurgitations of the ayatollahs’ claims about shadowy imperialists, the pile-on was in full swing.
James Petras, a senior member of the Canadian Dimension editorial collective, jumped to the regime’s defence, dismissing reports of widespread Iranian outrage as a fabrication of the “Zionist-mass media line.” the tyee, terry glavin
The comments are a perfect example of the Stalinist left, without the benefit of Stalin, trying to figure out how this is all America’s fault. Funny, sad, tawdry.
(I posted a version of this over at Dawg’s comments and it pretty much sums up my own views as to HRCs in light of Hudak’s election as Ontario Conservative leader.)
I am not a fan of dumping the anti-discrimination work of the Commissions into the Courts for many of the reasons tw cites. This work, if narrowly defined to housing and employment, could be handled effectively by Administrative tribunals. I am leery about Commissions having carriage of these matters. I suspect the system could work rather like the Residential Tenancy system in BC where parties pay their own costs and if they want to have a lawyer it is to their account.
In Ontario the only jurisdiction over speech that the Commission has is over signs and I suspect that signs saying “No Blacks need apply” could easily fit under either the housing or employment sections.
The key thing here is that neither housing nor employment anti-discrimination rules take a Charter Right away from anybody. There is no right to discriminate and there is s.15 promoting equality.
Rather obviously, the situation is very different with respect to free expression or freedom of the press as those rights are guaranteed by the Charter.
Where an individual’s Charter right is threatened by governmental action, administrative convenience and various access issues should, in my view, be subordinate to extending the full protections of the law to that individual. And, why yes, that would mean more work for lawyers.
Any decision limiting freedom of expression or freedom of the press will not only limit the Charter rights of the respondent, it will also chill the exercise of those rights by other citizens. Which is another critical reason to require the full protections of a criminal standard going to evidence, standard procedural protections and the presumption of innocence. If the government wants to take a citizen’s rights away from him it should have to satisfy a real judge that the citizen has broken a real law.
This position is not controversial when it comes to situations in which the state wants to strip a citizen of their rights per s7-14, it is difficult to see how s. 2 rights are any less worthy of protection.
Come on over and Celebrate Thought Crime in anticipation of Canada Day.
The winning slogans are the 1st items being offered for sale to the general public in our “Jennifer Lynch Line of Censorware Apparel” – Fashion that speaks your mind.
What’s really rather remarkable, is that since 2000, the rates at which CO2 emissions and concentrations are increasing have accelerated. According to Canadell et al. (2008), fossil fuel and cement emissions increased by 3.3 percent per year during 2000-2006, compared to 1.3 percent per year in the 1990s. Similarly, atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by 1.93 parts per million per year during 2000-2006, compared to 1.58 ppm in the 1990s. And yet, despite accelerating emission rates and concentrations, there’s been no net warming in the 21st century, and more accurately, a decline. alan carlin, epa suppressed report via watts up with that
There are 100 pages to Carlin’s report. He lays out, chapter and verse, how the science has moved on since the last IPCC report and how as the science improves the AGW case weakens.
Which is not what the Obama EPA wanted to hear so the report was directly suppressed.
So, “Last year, Victoria police and Langford RCMP boarded buses and searched passengers for alcohol, triggering an investigation by the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. The commission determined that the searches went beyond what is permitted by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
So this year BC Transit, “Police will be searching buses if they are requested to by B.C. Transit, he said. Rather than have additional staff on every bus, Transit will have “informational ambassadors” at main stops and exchanges, said Morton. “Essentially what we’re going to do is we’ll be asking people to demonstrate compliance on an as-needed basis. That means if we require you to open your bag because we hear a clanking of bottles, then that’s when we’ll be asking you to show what’s inside your bag.” [oak bay news]
“demonstrate compliance on an as-needed basis” Fuck that! You’re a bus company, morons. You are not God, you are not the state, you are not the police…a bus company, please try to get that.
So this year my kids, Sam and Max, 8 and 5, will have knapsacks with empties in them. Which they will rattle…hard if I know my boys. And we will laugh and we will assert out rights. And they will learn how to assert their rights. Homeschooling at its finest.
I have no time for this warrantless search bullshit. If people are overly rowdy on buses by all means come in and arrest them. But the reality is that July 1 is a Party, our Party. People like to have a few beers at a Party. So what?
Last year we had the cops illegally clear the bus we were on. We stood outside as the kids were searched for booze. They found nothing…the kids are alright!
This year my kids rattle the empties.
Twats!
Mark Steyn in Macleans this week,
“The Dominion of Canada has been reduced to complaining that Blazing Cat Fur is out to get it.”
Well, to be fair, it is not just the heroic kitty who has been kind enough to post a pre-print of Mark’s withering column.
The loony “cap and trade” (unless you are exempt or privileged or have a pal in Congress) comes up for a vote today in Congress. There is every chance it may lose which would be a very good thing for the American economy and good news for Canada as well. The Wall Street Journal considers how the momentum has shifted:
“The collapse of the “consensus” has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.” wall street journal
There is a very real possibility that the US cap and trade bill – notwithstanding the last minute (literally) addition of 300 pages of extra material the legislators have not had time to read, much less consider – may pass. But the combination of global cooling, the failure of assorted doomsday predictions to materialize and the horrendous economic cost of addressing what may very well be a non-problem will likely ensure that the political will to make the law’s provisions actually bite will be lost.
Which would be a good thing for the United States and the world in general. We need much better science before embarking on a course of economic destruction which is unlikely to have much, if any effect on a “problem” which may only exist inside overly simplistic models of climate.
We’ve never, in the history of human communication, made an idea unpopular by making it illegal. Weimar Germany had some of the most aggressive anti-hate-speech legislation the West has ever seen. If censorship worked as a tool to prevent hate, we would never have witnessed the horrors of the Holocaust.
Censorship, in fact, makes hate worse. It draws attention to the toxic views of those who belong on the fringe. It creates sympathy for them, allowing them to claim martyrdom at the hands of a government gone mad with political correctness.
Most frightening to me, censorship fuels the agenda of scarier, non-fringe enemies of equality. I think especially of Ezra Levant, who has found a new career as a human rights “victim.” He’s using his newfound platform to unfairly attack, ridicule and distort the work of human rights commissions. He won’t stop until there’s nothing left of the system that is so vital in the protection against discrimination.
...
Kevin Kindred, Scary Gay Guy, National Post.
...
Kevin I hope you are aware that Ms. Lynch has likely annotated your personal data in her People who are mean to me file:
Kevin Kindred: Extreme Right Wing Gay Rights Activist, belongs to suspected Neo-Nazi Group – Nova Scotia Rainbow Action Project – infiltrate for evidence of Ernst Rohm sympathizers. A shame I really liked La Cage too, that Robin Williams is sooo Funny.
The Top 10 finalists have been determined – Vote for your Top 3!
The Winning entrants chosen from your Top 3 – will receive Free T-Shirts with their slogan immortalized on a quality silk-screened T produced by Alexander of Hollywood. Head on over and check out his wares – they’re awesome!
Hughes said she has been shunned, scorned and ridiculed, and has suffered mental distress and humiliation. winnipeg free press
Good.
h/t BCF
Section 3 of the Act defines personal information as information about an identifiable individual that is recorded in any form including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, information relating to race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, marital status, education, medical, criminal or employment history, identifying numbers, fingerprints, blood type, personal opinions, etc.
Section 4 of the Privacy Act provides that personal information collected by a government institution must relate directly to an operating program or activity of the institution. Privacy Commissioner’s Findings It was a lousy ruling but a good summary of the Privacy Act.
Let us consider the coward Lynch’s file. Would it contain information about an identifiable individual’s personal opinions? Well, if I’m in it it certainly will.
Now, what possible relevance would my personal information have “to an operating program or activity of the insititution”? You can search in vain through the Canadian Human Rights Act for a section authorizing the Commission to collect information about its critics.
So it appears that the coward Lynch’s 1200 item file prima facie violates the Privacy Act.
Just one more example of the cowboy culture of the CHRC
Once in a while I refer to the coward Lynch’s little operation as a Cheka after the post revolutionary Russian internal security organization. But now I realize I was inaccurate, the CHRC is much more like the Stasi – the East German internal intelligence operation:
“Please, please, look. We have experienced 16 months of invective hurled at us, and at any time when anybody has tried to speak up and correct misinformation, gross distortions, caricaturizations, then the very next day there’s been some full-frontal assault through the blogs, through mainstream media. I have a file. I’m sure I have 1,200, certainly several hundred of these things,” she said. national post
A few questions for the coward Lynch – under what authority did you compile your file? Who paid for its compilation? How much staff time has been devoted to capturing the names of Canadians exercising their fundamental right to free expression? Who have you shared your little list with? How have you characterized the people on your list?
This is entirely outrageous. The CHRC is not supposed to be in the business of collecting information about Canadians’ political views and yet this coward has a file full of precisely that – political opinion.
This is not the action of a mild little administrative branch – this is the action of someone who does not believe in the fundamental political freedoms of Canadians enshrined in the Charter.
It is the action of the sort of bland little cowards who were so effective spying for the Stasi and keeping a lid on politics in East Germany.
h/t bcf
Update: BCF has the addy for Freedom of Information requests here. There are, as well, Privacy concerns and questions going to the possible creation of an unauthorized database.
BCF talks about bloggers using FOI - I would also suggest that anyone who has commented on any blog on any side of this issue needs to know if they are on the coward Lynch’s list. We do not know how widely this list has been shared and how the people on it have been characterized. Has it been shared with the RCMP? Or CSIS? Or the PCO? Have people who have blogged in favour of free speech or commented in that direction been characterized as being of the “far right”?
How dare the coward Lynch and the CHRC engage in a political spying operation in Canada? How dare they?
Update #2: At one point Dr. Dawg – who dismisses the Lynch List in the comments – found the list making activities of the Canada-Israel Committee suspect. Of course the CIC is not a branch of the Canadian government which, from a Dawg wagging perspective probably makes all the difference. (Thanks BCF)
|
|
Recent Comments