Responsible speech
Whenever someone is criticized for saying outrageous things, whether it is Ann Coulter or Michael Moore (not that I equate the two) or even Canadian Cynic, (read more than just the linked initial post and comments, this one went on for a while)the defense is usually that in a free society we all have a right to free speech. True enough, but there are limits on that speech - the old standby of "shouting fire in crowded theatre" being one limit, slander, uttering threats and perjury being others. The notion that there should be limits on what is referred to as hate speech has been denied in the United States but has taken hold in Canada.

From the CBC backgrounder:

Under Section 318, it is a criminal act to "advocate or promote genocide" - to call for, support, encourage or argue for the killing of members of a group based on colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. As of April 29, 2004, when Bill C-250, put forward by NDP MP Svend Robinson, was given royal assent, "sexual orientation" was added to that list.
Section 319 deals with publicly stirring up or inciting hatred against an identifiable group based on colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. It is illegal to communicate hatred in a public place by telephone, broadcast or through other audio or visual means. The same section protects people from being charged with a hate crime if their statements are truthful or the expression of a religious opinion.

(1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Short version: It is okay to hate a given group-- say left-handed, redheaded Straussian economists and lawyers-- it is even okay to tell your friends in the course of conversation that you think they should all be horsewhipped. But when you step up on a soapbox, electronic or actual, and advocate horsewhipping any group of people, it is officially naughty - UNLESS your statements are truthful or the expression of a religious opinion.

I'm not sure how the idea of a truthful statement comes into this as I'm not sure how one would justify genocide - - does this mean it is okay to say "We should kill all the caucasians in North America because white North Americans caused and sponsored the slave trade and committed genocide against the First Nations' people?" --I'm guessing the answer is probably no, you could probably denounce whitey until you turn blue in the face, but I suspect calling for people to be killed would, or at least should in my book, land you in trouble. The last part seems to mean it is okay to advocate murder if Allah/Jesus/The Flying Spagetti Monster says you should kill all the Infidels/Gays/Republican Klansmen. And the only reason its is there is that Christian activists demanded that they be allowed to denounce gays and promote hatred against them.

Effort to bring in a similar law in the U.S. have been opposed by free speech activists, civil libertarians and Fundementalist Christians. The first two groups argue on constitutional grounds that freedom of speech should be absolute. The third don't want anyone stopping them from hating who they want to and encouraging others to do likewise.

I have some sympathy for the arguments put forward by the first two groups, but the third group, well, they should be proud of what they've accomplished so far on the ground.

It may be that by pointing out the role of churches in promoting violence I am promulgating hatred against religious people, but I think I can safely fall back on the defence provided for in the Canadian Hate crimes act that everything I'm saying is true. What was done can be proved and a direct link can be show between misdeeds by individuals and the speech of religious organizations.

Let me be clear--I don't think that all religious people are bloodthirsty radical zealots, but there are, as in any mass movement, a few who go to extremes. My complaint is that by lobbying for the right to keep promoting hatred against groups based religious opinion, the more mainstream organizations provide cover, encouragement and legitimacy to the extremists.

Right now the Catholic church and the Fundemantalist Born-Again churches agree that abortionist are evil and that God hates homosexuals. The Pope recently reminded Catholics of the longstanding Church doctrine that Roman Catholicism is the only legitimate form of Christianity and that the rest of the so-called Christian churches are just a bunch of misguided heathens. Would it be a major stretch to imagine the Catholic church lapsing back into its old practices of encouraging violent anti-Semitism, or for the Mormon Church of Latter Day Saints to go back to preaching that those of African heritage are inferior? Both positions would be protected under Canada's hate crime laws under the exception for "religious opinion".

Organized religion does a lot of good in Western society in terms of charitable works. Churches provide a supportive community for their members and exert a form of social control over their members. So do motorcycle gangs, though their aims and methods may differ somewhat. It is time that churches were treated like any other organization. They should not be excused from paying taxes, nor excused for spreading hate.

That light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train
I've been reading a lot of stuff on Iraq lately, both opinion and factual reports, and arguing with some blockheads over at Canadian Cynic in the comment threads about a few things related to operation sandbox meatgrinder aka the war in Iraq.

First we have people like Bill Kristol, the man who was the brains behind Dan Quayle, saying stupid things and then we have the President saying stupid things.

"First of all, I understand why the American people are -- you know, they're tired of the war. People are -- there's war fatigue in America. It's affecting our psychology. I've said this before. I understand that. This is an ugly war. It's a war in which an enemy will kill
innocent men, women and children in order to achieve a political objective.
It doesn't surprise me that there is deep concern amongst our people. "

He did say one thing I agree with:

"We're at the beginning stages of a great ideological conflict between those who yearn for peace and those who want their children to grow up in a normal, decent society -- and radicals and extremists who want to impose their dark vision on people throughout the world. "

However, I think the radicals and extremists are led by Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, James Dobson, Pat Robertson and especially George W. Bush and others of their ilk who seem determined to destroy the United States by breaking it on the anvil of war. The administration has consistently abused and expanded its powers, ignored and willfully violated the constitutions and the law of the land in order to erode civil liberties and checks and balances on executive power. This is not a republican presidency any more, it is an imperial executive that rules by presidential edict on foreign policy and since the change in congress last fall, more and more by presidential veto on domestic policy.

We keep hearing from the Bushiviks that victory is at hand, that the insurgency is in its last throes. Frankly, the U.S. has turned the corner so many times in Iraq, it has come a full circle back to where it started. Iraq is broken, and will remain broken for the foreseeable future, possibly for the rest of my lifetime. There is every chance it will drag the rest of the region down into the flames of a tripartate civil war with it.

The United States will never win in Iraq -- insurgents with enough munitions and a certain level of support among the populace ALWAYS win eventually. And everytime there is an airstrike on the wrong house, or a U.S. soldier runs over a kid in the street or kicks in the door of the wrong family home in the middle of the night, it builds more support for the insurgents.

I'm very much inclined to say "You broke, it you bought it" and take the position that the United States has a responsibility to stay in Iraq until stability is restored and the insurgent threat is ended. If they had taken this tack in Vietnam, they would still be there and still be fighting the Viet Cong and the United States would look something like Russia right now, having bankrupted itself physically and morally in a pointless war and occupation. The insurgents are not going to go away and having an outside power that has been an enemy for last three decades there occupying the country will not hasten the process.

The U.S. is the bull in the china shop and at some point after the first set of china get smashed, its better to lead the bull out of the shop and back into its stall, rather than have it mangle the few remaining display cases and shit all over the floor while you look for your wallet to pay for the damage.

George W. and Bill Kristol and the other warmongers can talk all they like about their duty to Iraq and ensuring the sacrifices of troops have not been made in vain, but they already abnegated their responsibility by invading the place for no good reason in the first place. The Iraqi government's response to the whole question has been to keep fighting amongst itself over who gets the oil money. As far as the withdrawal of U.S. troops is concerned, the attitude of some is "here's your hat -- oh, leaving so soon?" while others would like them to get out of the way so they can just fight their civil war and get it over with.

After all that has gone on, it would be nice to see a positive ending, nice to think that all this death lead to something good instead of just more death. I'd love to see the United States win in Iraq, install an independent, western-friendly, representative, egalitarian, secular democratic government. I'd also love to do body shots off of Carmen Electra's cleavage between sets at my all star rock band's sell-out show at the Budokkan, but I've accepted the fact that neither of these things is going to happen.

There is not going to be a happy ending to this and the author of this entire story is George W. Bush. No one forced his hand, no gun was put to his head. He and his administration lied and cheated and cajoled and manipulated the United States into this war. Thousands have died and tens of thousands of Iraqis and others in the region have been inspired to hate the United States more than they ever did before. Meaning more terrorism, more repressive security measures, less democracy and freedom both in Iraq and in the United States and the rest of the world.

Osama Bin Laden (remember him? Whatever happenned to that guy?) handed George W. Bush the magic lamp on Sept. 11, 2001, and Dubya has been rubbing it for all he's worth. The Djinn is out of the bottle and as always happens with these things, George's three wishes (1. An excuse to seize unlimited power. 2. A way to get re-elected. 3. An excuse to invade Iraq) have backfired on America.

Somehow, someone needs to convince him there is no pony under the pile of horseshit, that it is no longer about winning, but about limiting the damage that is done. The neo-con's baby is dead, let's at least try to save the mother. Iraq is screwed for a least the next generation, probably more. Unless somebody grabs the wheel and soon, so is the United States.

Supporting the troops...not
First they send them to a place they just shouldn't be on the basis of trumped up charges and outright lies. Then they don't provide enough body armor or armored vehicles. Then they screw over the returning wounded at Walter Reed. Now, Bush is screwing the veterans out of health care so he can cut taxes for Haliburton and Paris Hilton.

How the other half "thinks"
A must read post on a dangerous religious fruitcake over at Recursivity: Kirk Durston: Apologist for Genocide
Mr. Durston says that genocide is ohkey-dokey as long as the little voice in his head he presumes to be god says it's all right. I expect Charlie Manson said the same thing.
(via Canadian Cynic)

Supporting the Troops
Over the last several weeks we've seen Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Defense Minister Gordon O'Connor and Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day twist and squirm on the issue of prisoners of war captured by the Canadian military in Afghanistan. They seemed to have hit a new low last week when Harper, who has never served in the military (or even had a job in the private sector) tried to deflect criticsm of his gormless defence minister by suggesting that anyone who hadn't served in the military was not fit to criticize those who had. By the same reckoning I suppose those who have never taught school should be barred from criticism of the education system and those of us who have never held a seat in the House of Commons should just keep our traps shut and be grateful for the fine job the Gnu Gummint of Kanada is doing on our behalf.
This is, of course, to use the technical term complete and utter bullshit. Canada is not a military dictatorship, the armed forces answer to their civilian overseers, who are supposed to answer to the voters.
This week, they've sunk a notch lower in their emulation of the national security state to the south, where anything the government does, no matter how many of its own laws it breaks, can be justified by claiming it is being done in the interest of national security (Just like they do in such enlightened democracies as North Korea and Burma. The government is now stonewalling on releasing information about the number of prisoners taken in Afghanistan, saying the enemy could use such information for propaganda purposes or to hurt our gallant boys in harm's way defending our way of life over there so that we don't have to fight the terrorists over here and why aren't you wearing red with yellow ribbons you islamoanarchofacist pinko bastard?
Doris wants to know how we dare to even ask questions:

"Detainees are not simply people who have jay-walked," Day said. "These are people who are suspected terrorists."

"That has been the air of the questioning, so much so that our troops tell us they think they're being accused of doing wrong things."

Doris better go read the Geneva Conventions again, because if the military is handing over prisoners to be tortured, they are doing the "wrong thing" -- the kind of wrong thing that could land people in the Hague. By asking these questions and demanding the military act properly we are supporting them, we are making sure they don't inadvertently violate international law and commit a war crime by mimicing the conduct of our neighbors to the south.
It is not the job of the grunts in the field or their immediate superiors to determine whether the Afghan government tortures prisoners. They should be able to take the word of the minister of defense and the prime minister and the chief of defense staff who job it is to determine what happens to prisoners taken on the battlefield. It very definitely is their responsibility to determine whether the Afghans are likely to torture any prisoners we hand over to them.
The opposition are doing their job, the voters are doing thier the troops are doing theirs -- why isn't the government doing its job?

crossposted at the Galloping Beaver, where Dave explains for the fourtyleventh time why it is important for us to follow the Geneva conventions, even if the other side doesn't.

the swift and terrible sword of justice
In Ohio, the sword of justice is certainly terrible -- swift, not so much.

LUCASVILLE, Ohio (AP) -- Death penalty opponents called on the state to halt executions after prison staff struggled to find suitable veins on a condemned man's arm to deliver the lethal chemicals.
The execution team stuck Christopher Newton at least 10 times with needles Thursday to insert the shunts where the chemicals are injected.
He died at 11:53 a.m., nearly two hours after the scheduled start of his execution at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility. The process typically takes about 20 minutes.

At least the condemned was a good sport about it:

But Newton, who had insisted on the death penalty as punishment and made no
attempt to appeal, chatted and laughed with prison staff throughout the delay.
It took so long that the staff paused to allow Newton a bathroom break.

I can see the Monty Python/SNL sketch already:

Executioner: Okay, are we ready? Doctor, have you found a vein?

Doctor: Yes

Executioner: Warden, can we go ahead?

Warden: Do your duty.

Convict: Duty? Duty? Wait a minute! Wait! I need to go to the toilet.

Executioner: Didn't you go before we left the cell?

Convict: I didn't need to go then!

Executioner: Well, can't you hold it for a few minutes? This won't take long.

Convict: No. I need to go now!

Executioner: (Sighs) Okay. Okay. Guard, unstrap him.

Convict: Thanks, I owe you one.

Executioner: Yeah, yeah, whatever. Can we just get on with this? I have to take my kid to soccer practice and I can't stay late tonight.

(Convict and guard shuffle out of death chamber, Executioner, warden, priest, doctor make uncomfortable small talk "how about those Mets, huh?" until convict and guard shuffle back in)

Executioner: Okay, ready? Can we do this now?

(convict is strapped in)

Bill Smith, you have been convicted of murder in the first degree by a jury of your peers and sentenced by a lawful court to death. Padre, would you administer the last rights?

Priest: Through this holy anointing, may the Lord in his love and mercy help you with the grace of the Holy....Uh, can we just pause there for a minute, I need to visit the uh...

Executioner: Oh, for the love of God -- fine! Just hurry it up will you? (to convict) Sorry about the delay, really.

Convict: 'Sallright

(more uncomfortable silence, guard starts to whistle aimlessly, some lively tune like Oasis' "Live Forever" or Queen's "Who wants to live forever" or even "Live and Let Die" until he notices others scowling at him. Priest returns.)

Priest: Sorry about that, just got caught short, I had a lot of coffee this morning

Executioner: Okay, are we ready now? Bill Smith, you have been convicted of murder in the first degree by a jury of your peers and sentenced by a lawful court to death. Padre, would you administer the last rights?

Priest: Through this holy anointing, may the Lord in his love and mercy help you with the grace of the Holy Spirit...

(Warden's cell phone rings, Executioner glares at him as it continues to ring. the Warden answers)

Warden: Oh, uh hello Governor...I'm fine, how are you?...really, I'm sorry to hear that. Have you seen anyone about it?..uh-huh...and the ointment is working, is it?...uh-huh...that's great!.....A 78, fantastic!...Uh-huh...uh-huh...no, not yet...okay...okay...right...Really! Gosh that is surprising...well, if that's the way you feel about it...I suppose it is for the best...Well, no, nobody likes to play God, I suppose....Yeah, I'll take care of it...Okay, thanks Governor, I understand... I'll talk to you later...right, okay...bye-bye.

(Warden puts phone back in pocket, resumes stance next to convict strapped to gurney. Executioner continues to stare at him)

Executioner: Well? (Everyone stares at Gov.)

Warden:What? Oh! The phone (laughs) yeah, it was the governor. He shot a 78 in the pro-am last week, can you believe it?
(They continue to stare)

Convict: AND?

Warden: Well, he's going on junket to Hawaii next week and he was thinking of having his hamster put down, since he won't be home to feed it, but I promised to take care of it for him.

Executioner: (sighs with relief and starts up again, very quickly) Bill Smith, you have been convicted of murder in the first degree by a jury of your peers and sentenced by a lawful court to death.....

Ding Dong


I've been trying very hard all day to take the high road and not to gloat, cheer or pile-on. It should always be a sad occasion when someone dies, but in the case of Jerry Falwell I'll make an exception. I'll also admit to having cracked a smile when they hung Saddam and when I heard Nixon and Reagan had finally croaked. Evil crap-sacks, each and every one. The ad is from Hustler --Jerry famously sued them and lost. He is the bastard who got the burgeoning fundementalist Christian movement tied in with the Republican party with his Moral Majority (all together now: "it was neither") movement starting in 1979. He got St. Ronnie of Raygun elected, he got Bush senior elected, he had a lot to do with getting Clinton impeached by the House of Representatives (though not as much as Clinton did, let's be fair). Without him there would be no politically active fundementalist movement -- no Ralph Reed, no James Dobson, probably no abortion clinic bombers either. He blamed 9/11 on homosexuals, the ACLU, abortion-providers and People for the American Way. He was a hate-spewing homophobic, racist, sexist bigot and if there is a hell, he is smoking a turd in it right now. And I for one, am glad.
That's right blogging Tories, CNN and conservatard everywhere, my name is Rev.Paperboy and I'm an angry, intolerant, godless, anti-Christian, liberal blogger. SFW?

Some costs can't be measured
In all the talk about Iraq and Afghanistan and whether the West is "winning" there and what price we are willing to pay a lot of things go unmentioned. People on both sides are willing to admit that bad things happen to those we send to fight. That people die is a given in most discussions. That people lose limbs and suffer catastrophic wounds and end up with permanent brain damage from massive head injuries is often, but not always overlooked. Those are the physical costs.
What we rarely hear about is the long term cost in broken families, broken spirits and broken lives paid by both sides. If you are one of the many armchair generals, chickenhawks and REMFs who are debating how "we can still win" or why it is dishonorable to "cut and run" and especially if you are one of death's cheerleaders, the type that say "soldiers sign up to die for their country so lets send them off to do so -- to make an omlette you have to break some eggs." --- go read the Galloping Beaver and Pretty Shaved Ape over at Canadian Cynic. And then go sit in the corner, shut up and be ashamed of yourself.

Major (General) Dick
"I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in any way." -- Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace

Indeed, I could not agree more. Immorality like this, this, this, this and this has no place in government policy or action. What kind of immorality were you talking about, General?

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in any way." -- Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace.

Just so I have this straight, let me check: imprisoning children indefinitely, abduction and torture (or as they call it rendition and robust interrogation), reading citizens' email and tapping their phones without judicial oversight, bombing civilians, lying to Congress, watching a major American city drown, letting poor kids die from something as simple as a tooth infection, drilling for oil in national parks, punishing the poor while giving more money to the rich -- these things are all okay. But two consenting adults of the same gender doing what consenting adults do is wrong.

Well, at least they aren't litterbugs