Canadian Charter of Might

Spinoza emphasizes that might is right.  Might and power can be excercised for the good of that which possess it. 

If the evolution and secularism is to be purely believed, we only ought to care about ourself.  We ought not respect others.  Why should we, if we are fighting for survival?  Charter rights have no backing in reason or any theological tradition anymore.  Instead, they are merely imposed rights, divorced from truth. 

In other words, they are a noble lie.  A myth. 

(16:14) The natural right of the individual man is thus determined, not by sound reason, but by desire and power. (15) All are not naturally conditioned so as to act according to the laws and rules of reason; nay, on the contrary, all men are born ignorant, and before they can learn the right way of life and acquire the habit of virtue, the greater part of their life, even if they have been well brought up, has passed away.

(16:18) Whatsoever, therefore, an individual (considered as under the sway of nature) thinks useful for himself, whether led by sound reason or impelled by the passions, that he has a sovereign right to seek and to take for himself as he best can, whether by force, cunning, entreaty, or any other means; consequently he may regard as an enemy anyone who hinders the accomplishment of his purpose.

- Spinoza, Theologico-Political Treatise, XVI

Iraq does what Canada could not

Just when you thought tolerance knows no rational bounds, this story comes up. Canada, as you know, approved Al-Jazeera for mass Canadian consumption recently.  I wonder if this Reuters story will be picked up by ANYONE in the Canadian press:

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari accused regional satellite channels of inciting violence and hinted Iraq might stop Al Jazeera operating in the country.

"Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, al-Manar and al-Alam have all become channels of incitement and opposed to the interests, security and stability of the Iraqi people," Zebari told Al Jazeera television.

"There is strong talk from some Iraqi government officials about closing Al Jazeera. Unfortunately it is being manipulated by terrorist groups and we will not tolerate this biased coverage," he said.

Story: Iraq says satellite channels incite violence

The Academy

Why is the Academy, on the whole, so left-wing liberal?

As if the struggle between government and the people in the history of western civilization escapes all memory.  More gov't=more problems.  More power=more corruption.

CNN for Kerry

Watching CNN early this morning gave me the impression that tonight's profile on Kerry will present him as a "fine senator."  Needless to say, CNN appears to go soft on him. 

And Larry King with Bob Dole at the DNC convention?  Interesting combo...

The crimes of the Iraqi-US war

One Vancouver Sun reader notes that Blair and Bush are two villians that will go down in the history books.    I note this with strange curiousity. 

It is easy to get whipped up into this anti-war attitude in Canada.  Everyone does it.  Why not?

But really, what the Allies did in Iraq is a bit like raising money with the premise that the fundraisers need the money for their own good, and instead of using it for their own good, they give it to charity at a personal cost to themselves, and by extension their donars.

If the 'crime' was freeing millions of Iraqi's from a murderous tyranny, then how selfish are we to say it was crime?  If we only look at OUR benefits to going to war, that AMERICA would be saved, and we find out that America did not need saving, then of course you might feel a bit ripped off.  But I would challenge those with ideological presuppositions that oppose war and Bush to begin with, and look at the Iraqi war as a humanitarian venture.  I dare you to talk to an Iraqi, or an Afghani, and ask them if they thought the liberation was good for the country. 

My Afghani friend was overdelighted when the US took out the Taliban.  He was afraid to express this view in Canada, for fear of what Canadians would think if he thought the war was a good one.  Anti-war people would drown him out with rhetoric and unfair accusations.

This lack of debate and inability to dissent reasonably is the real tyranny.

The values of the 9/11 commission

The 9/11 commission
Today's National Post cartoon is brilliant.  If you have a chance, go peek at it at a newstand.  Yet it is so simple that I almost glazed over it without noticing its cleverness.  While everyone is talking about "who is to blame" in the 9/11 attacks, they are not pointing at Osama bin Laden, but Bush, Clinton, FBI, CIA, intelligence, airport screeners.  My goodness. 

The real fact of the matter is, if someone, anyone, wanted to do something catastrophic, they probably could without the government stopping them.  This may come as a shock to some people who esteem government highly.  But it is true.  Government fails people all the time, get used to it.  Admittedly there are things that could have been better -- for one, a smaller bureaucracy that could have handled intelligence efficiently.  More and bigger government is not the answer.  Smarter government is.  Not that it will stop future attacks.  Future attacks are "the clash of Civlizations" as Samuel Huntington calls it.  Poke fun at that thesis all day long if you like, but I think it is stronger and stronger as time goes by.

With regards to the 9/11 attacks but more so with ethics in general, the biggest question that secularists cannot answer is: why should terrorists respect the rights of others?  Or more specifically, why should I respect the rights of others? 

If the ego is the centre of responsibility, and the ego is fine with any human consequences that may arise from violating others' rights, what is to stop the ego from flagarently violating others' rights?  Nothing.  Christianity, Islam, Judaism affords answers to this problem: accountability to a transcendent being.  Secularism?  Nothing. 

The proposition: one should respect life so that yours will be respected, is of no use.  What if I don't care about my life being respected? 

 

The dominion is weak

Now Canada has viritually made a sport of America-bashing. 

To be sure, we love to watch a good proverbial kick land in Uncle Sam's groin.  A "Bush/Cheney 04" car bumper sticker will all but assure your car will get either vandalized or stolen and driven off a cliff or into a deep lake. 

But on the other hand, I realized that we care about them.  A lot.  Take today's National Post: all about the 9/11 commission talking about us.  Global?  What is America's take on us.  Talking with Canadians on 22 minutes with Rick Mercer?  All about Americans make fools of themselves--talking about us.  We need efficacy bad in Canada.  And we get it from the US, not by anything great we have done.

Canada pours endless resources into Canadian arts that aren't terribly excellent, Canadian TV shows that no body watches in order to create 'culture.'  But Canadians know that such programming does not give us the greatness we seek or at least the impression that we are great.  Due South was such a hit because it showed a mountie in America.  We love to see how people react to Canadians or Canada, but we don't neccessarily want to pursue something noble to achieve such greatness. 

Chretien loved touting the UN livability rankings when Canada was number 1.  Validation.  We need it.  We love it when Americans and the world tell us how great we are.  But Canadians desparately seek their validation.

I suggest it is because the dominion is weak.

On Same Sex Marriage

Below is my response to Dan Koffler's argument on same-sex marriage.  Readers can read his previous critique of my argument here.  If anybody is interested in the core of the same-sex marriage debate, they can skip to point 3.   

Point one: Finnegan says that he does not understand this statement of mine: 

"You are misguided on the polygamy vs. gay marriage point. It is a bit like saying 'it is okay to fall in love with many different people, but not more than one at a time."'Well, I do not see the problem with the state condoning polygamy when it does condone people cheating on each other. That is, if I go cheat on my girlfriend, what is the state going to do about that? Nothing. Thus, the discrimination against polygamous people is arbitrarily enforced -- not merely against homosexuals."  

Firstly, I am merely attacking Dan's argument against the state intruding on privacy, which it does in the case of "polyamory."  If the key legal reason why homosexual sex, and thus gay marriage, is legal (see Lawrence v. Texas) has to do with non-state intrusion (a bona fide right to privacy), then why must the state pick and choose which sexual relationships to make legal or illegal.  That is merely my point here.  The fact that the state is in the marriage business altogether is 'arbitrary' in the sense that it arose out of the Christian canon law.  

Of course, this raises a different interesting question: why is the state in the business of marriage altogether anymore?  Is it legitimacy of monogamous couples?  Tradition?  Family?  Perhaps that the continuation of the human races largely depends on monogamous heterosexual relationships?  Even a proponent of same-sex marriage cannot deny this.  If every relationship in the world were of the same-sex, how would humanity live on (minus scientific advancements that could fertilize)?  

Point 2: Dan dazzles as our resident philogist.  Polyamory should be used, not polygamy - since polygamy is ambiguous, he says.  Well, I prefer polygyny (but not many people know what that is), so I use polygamy.  For argument's sake I think Webster's will vindicate my position that polygamy can refer to a man or woman with multiple wives of the opposite sex: "The having of a plurality of wives or husbands at the same time; usually, the marriage of a man to more than one woman, or the practice of having several wives, at the same time."  I do not think it matters whether one has many wives or one has many husbands.  Polygamy suffices as a concrete enough term.

Point 2.5: This point is so 'rife' with hyperbole that it ought to be left for readers to decide its veracity:

Personally, I don't have a huge problem with allowing groups of people to marry each other. The problem is that every historical instantiation of polyamory involving multiple marriage is rife with physical and sexual abuse.

Every instance? Don't set the bar too low for me.  But sarcasm aside, even if this is mostly true this does not mean the state should legislate based on what may happen.  The possibility for a loving and abuse-free relationship depends largely upon the people involved.  Every relationship is a fresh start; each one has the potential to be abusive.  Banning a relationship merely because it is likely to be abusive seems a lot like the state banning second marriages to people in which their first marriage was dissolved due to abuse.      

Point 3:  I think that using this line of argumentation just helps my case:

What Jonathan is not legally able to do is marry one woman, and then marry another. I'll defend to the death his right to cheat on his girlfriend and take on as many sexual partners, men and women, as he desires...A polyamorous heterosexual person is free to marry any person with whom he falls in love. What he lacks is the freedom to marry multiple people simultaneously.

This helps my case because your restriction of polygamists' liberty depends on current laws, without acknowledging that polygamists want to do is change the positive laws which restrict marriage -- which is the same as same-sex marriage proponents.  Homosexuals currently lack the freedom to marry in most states; just as polygamists do.  Both want to modify the definition of marriage so as to gain liberty.  Thus, the similarity between the cause of polygamists and homosexuals. For a deeper explanation of why this is so, I move on to my next point.

Point 4:  Now my last point that polygamist rights are similar to homosexual rights is anchored in this point: that the traditional definition of marriage ought to be changed.   Here is Dan's position:

Were homosexual marriage to be legalized, homosexuals would have no more freedom to enter into group marriages than anybody else. Nothing about the fundamental structure of marriage as a union between two individuals will have changed. It remains to be shown why homosexuals should be barred from joining such a union.

Now this point appears to be the pivot of his argument.  Allow me to outline it as I see it.

The traditional definition of marriage is a contract that requires the consent of the parties involved which requires
a) Two individuals
b) One man and one woman

This definition has been the core civil, common and canon law traditions up until the 21st century.  Dan proposes that marriage is discriminatory since two people who love each other are "barred from joining such a union." 

Dan's argument attempts to modify b) to read "two people."  The problem with this is that is messes with Custom.  The result of distorting, as opposed to incremental changes to custom and subjecting it to rational review, is that it will eventually disintegrate the whole custom altogether.  What Dan proposes is no different, and here is why.

I can see no reason why if one changes b) they are restricted from changing a).  They are both coequal characteristics which are integral in the traditional definition of marriage.  You can argue sociologically all you want on why two people are better than three.  But legally speaking, if homosexuals argue based on love and discrimination, I see no reason to deny polygamists' claims on the same ground.

As a Canadian court in Layland vs. Toronto put it:

"The law does not prohibit marriage by homosexuals provided it takes place between persons of the opposite sex. Some homosexuals do marry. The fact that many homosexuals do not choose to marry, because they do not want unions with persons of the opposite sex, is the result of their own preferences, not a requirement of the law." 

Thus, the law is not required to cater to all sexual preferences. By the nature of their respective relationships, homosexual and heterosexual relationships are different.  With respect to many laws, the law does discriminate between relationships.  It discriminates based on personal and business relationships (with respect to things taxable or not); and between father and son (with respect with authority and obedience).

Point 5: Dan says:

In the United States in 2004, any two heterosexuals of sufficient age and not blood-related within prohibited degrees have the right to marry one another. They need not want to have children, need not have the ability to have children, and need not love or even like each other. Heterosexuals are free to marry for financial reasons, in order to facilitate an immigration, because they're in love, or for any other reason that they could come up with. The only restriction is that no one can be forced to marry. These are criteria that any two homosexuals can easily meet, and to deny them the right to marry is arbitrary discrimination.

Well you are right and wrong.  Marriage laws do not distinguish between heterosexuals and homosexuals.  Thus, it is wrong to say that homosexuals are denied to marry.  You are right in saying that homosexuals easily meet the criteria for marriage based on the above restrictions.  A male homosexual may marry a female homosexual: thus homosexuals can marry each other. Homosexuals are not denied the right to marry.  They can marry anyone they want, provided it be a member of the opposite sex.   Thus, there is no arbitrary discrimination there.  Homosexuals and heterosexuals can marry.  If there is arbitrary discrimination, it is in the definition of marriage, which was discussed in the point above.

Point 6: Regarding incest.  Here is your main argument against incest: that incest is associated with a) rape and abuse b) it results in birth defects.

Well a) is not always the case in these relationships.  It is not a necessary condition that all of these relationships are abusive.  But assuming that b) is a valid argument, I submit that all couples of the same-sex be sterilized before getting married.  That way, no birth defects.  But even this I see as going too far -- heterosexual couples who know that their baby will have birth defects are not required to have an abortion.  Even if their previous children have had birth defects, suggesting a defective gene, they are not prohibited from procreation.

Although I think those 2 reasons are really quite weak at their base, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume for the moment that you are correct.  Assuming that these are the only reasons why incest is banned by the state, I suggest that there is still good reason for the state to bless relationships with marriage between close family members.

Assuming that two people in the same family (or first cousins) love each other, I see no reason for the state to deny two members of the same-sex to marry.  Brother-brother.  Sister-sister.  Mom-daughter.  Legally speaking, why deny them?

Point 7: Dan says:

I want to be as objective as possible, but it's difficult when confronting so many horrific misinterpretations of American Constitutional law. In the Brown decision of 1954, the US Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that arbitrary forms of discrimination violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The issue in Brown was simply unjust and arbitrary.  What is forgotten is that racial segregation is not rooted in the common law.  That is, segragation is not explicitly protected, whereas marriage is. 

In response to Dan's comparison from Brown to same sex marriage, I point out that Supreme Court jurisprudence holds that the Fourteenth Amendment

denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399 (1923) -- (Look up the case here for more supportive legal cases for the reasoning behind this statement).

Since it is safe to say that the marriage is a privilege "long recognized at common law" I do not see that same-sex proponents have anything to gain under the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Last point: Dan:
What unique principle that has not already been removed from civil marriage law can a heterosexual couple achieve that a homosexual couple cannot? Fertility, as I've already discussed at more than sufficient length, is not a legal criterion for the issuance of a valid marriage license.

I say that marriage is based on a biological reality based on the concept of consummation.  For any marriage to be valid, it must be consummated.  This "coming together" is abiological.  What differs this coming together from any homosexual relationship is that there is no biological united involved in their type of sexual relations.  In heterosexual relations, real unity is achieved by the sperm and egg uniting to create a unique biological principle.  With regards to the question of fertility, Finnis has this response, which I think is apt:

"In this reductivist, word-legislating mood, one might declare that sperm and egg unite only physically and only their prouclei are biologically united.  But it would be more realistic to acknowledge that the whole process of copulation, involving as it does the brains of the man and woman, their nerves, blood, viginal, and other secretions, and coordinated activity is biological through and through. The organic... unity of the persons is the intentional, consensual act of seminal emission/reception in the woman's reproductive tract."

Further, as Robert George points out,

"the plain fact is that the genitals of men and women are reproductive organs all of the time -- even during periods of sterility. And acts that fulfill the behavioral conditions of reproduction are acts of the reproductive type even where the nonbehavioural conditions of the reproduction do not happen to obtain" (conception).

Matrimonial law has traditionally understood marriage as consummated only by reproductive acts of spouses.  And finally, the sterility of spouses has never been an impediment to consummation. 

Coming soon...

Coming soon... my refutation of Dan Koffler's response to my rebuttal in an article that appeared in the Yale Free Press blog on the law and same-sex marriage.
 
If you want to read the dialogue in chronological order, work your way backwards from the last (Yale) to first (Koffler) link.
 

The P.C. police - watch out!

Schwarzenegger Calls Dems 'Girlie Men'
 
This is ridiculous. All you can do is shake your head in disbelief.  I suppose calling a homosexual man a "manly man" would be 'heterophobic' and sexists too.  Read the full article to get more of the context of where Arnold is ripping this line from by clicking the title above.

"If they don't have the guts to come up here in front of you and say, 'I don't want to represent you, I want to represent those special interests, the unions, the trial lawyers ... if they don't have the guts, I call them girlie men," Schwarzenegger said to the cheering crowd at a mall food court in Ontario.

A spokesman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Sunday that the governor would not apologize for calling lawmakers "girlie men," despite criticisms from Democrats that the remark was sexist and homophobic.

"It uses an image that is associated with gay men in an insulting way, and it was supposed to be an insult. That's very troubling that he would use such a homophobic way of trying to put down legislative leadership," said Kuehl, one of five members of the Legislature's five-member Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus

This story reminds me of another story, where a homosexual wasn't girly enough:

Canada rejects aslyum for 'macho' gay man

Ottawa, ON, May. 4 (UPI) -- The Canadian Refugee Board has denied asylum to a Mexican homosexual because he is not "visibly effeminate" and therefore not vulnerable to persecution.

Fernando Enrique Rivera, 30, came to Canada four years ago after he was allegedly blackmailed by colleagues in the Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, police department.
In December 2002 the Immigration and Refugee Board concluded: "Effeminate gestures come naturally and unconsciously. ... If he were indeed visibly effeminate, he would have been (un)able to easily land a job with the 'macho' police force of Puerto Vallarta."

The IRB only offers protection to effeminate or HIV-positive men, as well as political activists and whistle blowers from Mexico, the Globe and Mail reported.
A federal court upheld the board's decision in April, and Rivera now faces deportation if his final appeal on humanitarian grounds is rejected.

"I know some gay refugees who put on lipstick and dressed effeminately ... because they thought it would help their case. But that is not who I am," Rivera said. "You don't choose to be gay. It's not like being a vegetarian. It's a very complex thing."

 

 Unbelievable, really.

 

Custom

“Merely according to reason, nothing is just in itself, everything shifts with time. Custom is the whole of equity for the sole reason that it is accepted….Anyone who tries to bring it back to its first principles destroys it…The art of subversion, of revolution, is to dislodge established customs by probing down to their origins in order to show how they lack authority and justice.”

-Blaise Pascal

Welcome to the modern scientific method.

On Clinton

Let me preface this post by saying that I like Clinton as a politician.  He was a brilliant people person and diplomat.  I hate to directly include "Clinton" and "admire" in the same sentance, so I will just say that I respect his political skills.  He was a natural.  Now on to the critique.

Recently, I was with someone who was admiring Bill Clinton. 

"At least he didn't go to war like Bush" he said.

He is absolutely right.  Except for Somolia, Sudan, Kosovo, and Haiti.

On the other hand, I pressed my friend for positive reasons to like Clinton as President.  He was, like many others who admire Clinton, unable to come up with any.  Clinton left things how they were, and that made him a great leader in the eyes of many.   But think about it -- you remember Bush for tax cuts, tarrifs, terrorism and war.  Clinton -- Monica...and nothing.  Dante would have a field day.

In this article, Mr. Steyn reviews his latest book.  Steyn captures private Bill Clinton perfectly. Mr. Clinton's writing reflects his thought; he thinks he is the everyman to everyone. It is apt to describe him as an "empty shell." He is a Machiavellian politician with great ability to maneuver out of a jam, but clearly has toasted his soul in the process.

"[Clinton] winds up with a book that reads like the world's biggest Rolodex punctuated by self-doubt."

Undoubtedly, the Clinton years are stained (dare I use that word in the same sentence as Mr. Clinton?) with indecision and self-preservation.

What is remarkable about this observation is that it reveals such adolescent pride and mischief more prone to Justin Timberlake than to the leader of the free world. Bill Clinton's life personifies an American dream void of virtue and scorched with vanity.

Lady Thatcher

This paragraph in Peggy Noonan's article was interesting.

People get nervous. And they're not wrong to be nervous. Experience has taught them to be. Life is hard, and we all fear loss. I have had a very few conversations with Margaret Thatcher, and each time she has said something wise, but maybe the wisest was this. It was years ago, after she had lost power following an attempt to change the poll tax in Britain. She told me she had learned that in politics one must "never underestimate people's fears." At the time I thought that a surprising thing for the Iron Lady to say, or think. Those who know her well would know if she was saying what she'd always thought, or what she'd just learned, or relearned.

Frum

David Frum tells me he is going to be writing a weekly article this summer for the National Post.
 
Look for it on Tuesdays.

The tale of EGALE

Now this is truly hilarious.  If you want a good chuckle, go over to the EGALE blog.  Over at EGALE, the gay-rights organization which has led the fight against heterosexual marriage, they seem to love the Charter.
 
"The recent election did produce a true winner: the Charter!"
 
The Liberals won. Canada is saved!  But EGALE only loves part of the Charter: A Conservative government would "turn the clock back on human rights, and to use the notwithstanding clause."  So Section 33 isn't part of EGALE's Charter.  I wonder what EGALE's position on s.33 is...
 
But even more outrageous is their 'framing' tactics.  Apparently, if you believe the family unit should be protected in law, you are "vehemently anti-choice."  Well two can play at that game.  By refusing to let Parliament decide the definition of marriage, EGALE, and other organizations which promote same-sex marriage, are also 'anti-choice.'
 
But rights legislation cannot be subjected to the will majority, to do so would be to "deny equality to lesbian and gay people."
 
OR CAN IT?
 
EGALE pronounces this poll as if it should guide legislation in the area of gay rights:

Compared to 48% support last September, 57% of Canadians now feel that “Gays and lesbians should be allowed to get married.” Only 38% were opposed with 4% unsure. A whopping 77% of Canadian adults under 30 support same-sex marriage.
--Conclusion: "Canadians espouse the values enshrined in the Charter"--
 
Use polls when it suits you I guess (now).  Hide them when they are unfavourable to your cause (when same-sex marriage was unpopular and they were battling in Court for recognition).
 
The point of the Charter, and any Constitution, is that it does not change according to public opinion.  Otherwise you have democratic mob majority rule.  I do believe in the "separation of powers" doctrine and judicial review.  But what I cannot stand is people who go out to a Court with signs, trying to prostitute justice in the name of "the will of the people."  The will is in the legislature, not the courts (unless you are in a jury).   You know the system is working when you have a Constitution that upholds the rule of law even though the majority does not even believe in it.  That is what Constitutional amendments are for damnit.

Fox News in Canada?

Fox News is applying again to come into Canada.  There will be a hearing August 9.2004.
 
If you would like to comment, as I did, to the CRTC, you can online.
 
Click here.  Near the bottom there is a link that you can click on to take you to a form where you can post your comments.  Remember the meeting number (2004-45).
 

Bowling for Ottawa

In Mr. Moore's world, the Second Amendment is mostly responsible for the Columbine shootings and the high gun-violence rate in the US.  If it wasn't so easy in the US to get guns, then maybe people wouldn't resort to that?
 
Whatever Moore's subtle conclusions are, a big one is this: there is a correlation between gun control laws and violence in suberbia.
 
Well then, how did this guy open fire so easily in Ottawa?
 
"A MACHINEGUN-toting man who opened fire on three Ottawa teens outside a downtown shopping mall Tuesday night had threatened an attack weeks earlier, one of his victims said yesterday."
 
And how did he get a Tec-9 or Uzi semi-automatic machinegun?  It seems safe to say that such a weapon WAS NOT registered in our Gun Registry.
 
Interesting, the line about his ethnicity is found deep in the story: 

The gunman is described as Middle Eastern, 25-35 years old, 6 feet tall, 140-145 lbs. with a thin build, black hair and scruffy beard. 
 
Now I have some friends that are "Middle-Eastern", from Kuwait and Egypt.  This incident will likely only add to their belief that Arabs can be aggressive and get a little hot headed quickly. 
 
For me, this incident only adds to my belief that our Gun Registry will not stop gun violence.  I mean, the guy is using an Uzi, not a hunting rifle.  Where is the almighty registry when we need her most?

Thousands demand death

On the War in Iraq
 
::::Who controls the news?::::
 
I had to go to a New Zealand website - yes New Zealand -- to find out this big news item of the day, gone unreported in the North American press:
 
Thousands of Iraqis have marched through central Baghdad demanding the execution of former dictator Saddam Hussein and denouncing Islamist militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
 
Isa al-Musawi, a 63-year-old man in tribal dress carried a picture of his executed son, Fadhil. He said his son was dragged away from a mosque in 1981 and executed by the former regime.
 
Musawi said he only found out his son was dead 22 years later, after the US-led war, when he found his son's name on a long list of executed political prisoners. He says Saddam should be executed live on television, but said he would prefer personally to avenge his son's death. "If Saddam was in my hands, I would eat him alive ... but even that isn't enough of a punishment, he must suffer," he said.
 
 

Magna problemo

Those fretting whether Churches will be forced to preform same-sex marriages should read the 1215 Magna Carta. If courts DO force churches to recognize these relationships, they will have 800 years of legal history to go up against:

The first provision states: our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs forever that the English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate...We have also granted to all freemen...all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever.

That is, unless forever is construed by a Canadian court to mean, under "progressive interpretation," about 789 years.

The rule of men, not law

If you are a Canadian who believes in the rule of law, you should be scared.

Last night I went back to the decision that started it all: the 2003 June decision that hijacked the definition of marriage. Here is a hall of fame moment of jurisprudence sine prudence:

Ontario Court of Appeal:"To freeze the definition of marriage to whatever meaning it had in 1867 is contrary to this country’s jurisprudence of progressive constitutional interpretation."

This statement absolutely boggles my mind. Stare decisis, the rule of law, and every pre-1982 law is effectively at risk. Amazingly, this 1930 statement was quoted for support:

“The British North America Act planted in Canada a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits."

The BNA act, as you will remember, does not contain any "rights" talk. It is merely the basis for our bare essentials of our confederalism. Thus, it boggles my mind why the justices quote Dickson's 1984's statement referring to Constitutional not statuatory growth, which is what the 1930's quote is referring to:


The task of expounding a constitution is crucially different from that of construing a statute... The constitution must, therefore, be capable of growth and development over time to meet new social, political and historical realities often unimagined by its framers. The judiciary is the guardian of the constitution and must, in interpreting its provisions...

Then, in an unbelievable display of ignorance, they quote this:

"[t]he doctrine of progressive interpretation is one of the means by which the Constitution Act, 1867 has been able to adapt to the changes in Canadian society.”

In searching hard to support their preconcieved result, the Onario justices seem unable to distinguish between our entrenched Charter and the BNA act. Any undergraduate polisci student knows the difference between separation of powers and "fundamental rights." Since the BNA act was an act of neccessity, it had to have been given room to grow; only 4 provinces subscribed to the act in 1867. Of course it is living!

But that does not change the fundamental nature of our democracy, which is the rule of law. What these judges propose will ruin the rule of law. This is not "fundamentalist rhetoric." Read the decision for yourself (click the title above). It is downright scary. I propose this question to any open minded individual: Under this current jurisprudence of "progressive interpretation", what law can possibly stop a judge from inventing "the right to wear no seat belt" wherever and whenever the driver wants to. Since no positive law seems to be effective against this invented right, found crouched in the right to "liberty" and "security of the person", there is nothing that can be done about it. Of course, this is a far-reaching example, the more obvious examples are polygamy and prostitution, not to mention restrictions on all forms of gambling and the sale of alcohol.

Pitfield, in the original 2001 BC Court judgment on the issue, offered this gem:

The fact that marriage and divorce are specific matters assigned to Parliament by the Constitution Act, 1867 attests to the importance of marriage in our society and suggests that a change to accommodate gay and lesbian relationships should be made by the Parliament or provincial legislatures, if a change is to be made at all.

Human rights and Islam

Islamic-Human Rights - now there is a contradiction in terms in at least 25 countries. Not only because Islam is not known for its "human rights" record, but because Islamic moral teaching is Divine, not natural, which human rights claims to be. Further, the focus of Islamic moral teaching is the Almighty, as a classical religion, and not the "rights" and privledges of people.

The winners of the Islamic Human Rights Commission’s annual ‘Islamophobia Awards’ were announced today ahead of the ceremony to be held in Maida Vale, London Saturday evening.

Scalia's greatest hits

Scalia's brilliant dissent in this case reminds me that the judges have "take a side in a culture war" as well as the monopinion existent in law schools. It is also somewhat reassuring that someone as brilliant as Scalia on the US's highest court. Unfortunately he is the one dissenting, but he seems to write as if he is paving the way for democracy to be restored from this "judicial tyranny."

Lawrence vs. Texas, Dissent
On the question of the legality of the state prohibiting certain types of private behaviour


1.3 What a massive disruption of the current social order, therefore, the overruling of Bowers entails. Not so the overruling of Roe, which would simply have restored the regime that existed for centuries before 1973, in which the permissibility of and restrictions upon abortion were determined legislatively State-by-State....

To tell the truth, it does not surprise me, and should surprise no one, that the Court has chosen today to revise the standards of stare decisis set forth in Casey. It has thereby exposed Casey's extraordinary deference to precedent for the result-oriented expedient that it is.

IV
I turn now to the ground on which the Court squarely rests its holding: the contention that there is no rational basis for the law here under attack. This proposition is so out of accord with our jurisprudence--indeed, with the jurisprudence of any society we know--that it requires little discussion.

The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are "immoral and unacceptable," Bowers, supra, at 196--the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity. Bowers held that this was a legitimate state interest. The Court today reaches the opposite conclusion. The Texas statute, it says, "furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual," ante, at 18 (emphasis addded). The Court embraces instead Justice Stevens' declaration in his Bowers dissent, that "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice," ante, at 17. This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review.

Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual conduct. See Romer, supra, at 653.

One of the most revealing statements in today's opinion is the Court's grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is "an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres." Ante, at 14. It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed...

So imbued is the Court with the law profession's anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously "mainstream"; that in most States what the Court calls "discrimination" against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such "discrimination" under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress

The matters appropriate for this Court's resolution are only three: Texas's prohibition of sodomy neither infringes a "fundamental right" (which the Court does not dispute), nor is unsupported by a rational relation to what the Constitution considers a legitimate state interest, nor denies the equal protection of the laws. I dissent.

Job growth marks third straight monthly gain @ workopolis.com

Gee, you know Canada's economy is slowly tanking when it depends on the government bankrolling people to keep these numbers up. I am willing to be there is a net loss in jobs minus the public sector from people losing their job. Scary

Job growth marks third straight monthly gain in Canada: "The details of the report cast doubts on the sustainability of the job creation witnessed in the last three months, said John Anania, assistant chief economist at Royal Bank of Canada. The bulk of the job creation was concentrated in the public sector, while the private sector lost jobs, mainly in manufacturing and services.

'For every 10 jobs created so far this year, nearly nine have come from the public sector,' Mr. Anania said, adding more private sector job growth is needed in the coming months."

What Canada lacks the gall to do

President George W. Bush says legalizing gay marriage would redefine the most fundamental institution of civilization and that a constitutional amendment is needed to protect it.

Read on.

3
Posted by Hello

2
Posted by Hello

1
Posted by Hello