29 Replies to “Reader Tips”

  1. Greenpeace’s latest scare campaign: “Untold human suffering” and “deaths of tens of millions” in 2030 because of global warming.
    According to Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace’s International Executive Director, there were five million deaths from climate-related impacts in *2013*.
    NNoN:

    As proof for the coming “untold human suffering” due to global warming Greenpeace offers…this:

    “Parts of Russia are super cold.”
    “Jerusalem was blanketed with snow in January 2013.”

    h/t Tom Nelson

  2. No PeterJ
    that is something Tommy Douglas did and would possibly still endorse. Progressives, everything has to be pretty for family portrait day.

  3. The Police Loophole
    This is a list of companies that have taken the step to publicly announce that they will not sell items to states, counties, cities, and municipalities that restrict their citizens rights to own them; therefore closing the “police loophole” themselves.
    http://www.thepoliceloophole.com/

  4. And no,EBD.There has all ready been deaths of millions,thanks to the murderer Rachel Carson and her goons,WWF.But they are only poor little African kids,so who cares? If it saves only one mosquito.

  5. Wednesday, Feb. 27. Supreme Court of Canada mindlessly hammers another nail in the coffin of free speech:
    http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12876/index.do
    The biggest problem, as with many court judgments at all levels, is that the judges (and the politicians) have no idea that the proper function of the state is to step in when one person uses coercion against another. It is no concern of the state when one person insults another, or a group (and the Court said as much in Bou Malhab, a couple of years ago).
    SCC: “tribunals must focus their analysis on the effect of the expression at issue, namely whether it is likely to expose the targeted person or group to hatred by others”
    and: “Whether or not the author of the expression intended to incite hatred or discriminatory treatment is irrelevant”
    So much for mens rea, one of the hallmarks of whether behaviour can be considered criminal.
    more: “The key is to determine the likely effect of the expression on its audience, keeping in mind the legislative objectives to reduce or eliminate discrimination”
    “Determining the likely effect” where emotions are concerned is fortune-telling, not law.
    SCC: “The statutory prohibition against hate speech at s. 14(1)(b) of the Code infringes the freedom of expression guaranteed under s. 2(b) of the Charter”
    and: “The limitation imposed on freedom of expression by the prohibition in s. 14(1)(b) of the Code is a limitation prescribed by law within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter and is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”
    The problem is that when everything otherwise unconstitutional is nevertheless upheld under s.1, then the constituitional provisions are gutted. The SCC has been guilty of this numerous times, to the point that our freedoms are badly eroded.
    SCC: “[This s.1 limitation] appropriately balances the fundamental values underlying freedom of expression with competing Charter rights and other values essential to a free and democratic society, in this case a commitment to equality and respect for group identity and the inherent dignity owed to all human beings.”
    We have to respect each others’ rights, not their ‘group identity’ or their goddamned “dignity”.
    We have to not punch people in the nose and (probably) not incite others to punch them in the nose. We don’t necessarily have to refrain from saying that so-and-so should be punched in the nose.
    SCC: “Hate speech lays the groundwork for later, broad attacks on vulnerable groups that can range from discrimination, to ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide”
    It might lay such a groundwork, but (1) the state’s job is to legislate against violence; (2) it is not private individuals who have carried out genocides, and also only the state can segregate or deport; (3) personal ostracism is an exercise of the right to freedom of association.
    SCC: “the prohibition does not preclude hate speech against an individual on the basis of his or her uniquely personal characteristics, but only on the basis of characteristics that are shared by others and have been legislatively recognized as a prohibited ground of discrimination”
    So the Court says, with a straight face, that it’s okay to foment hate against one individual based on “uniquely personal characteristics”, but not if another person shares them? How ridiculous. This kind of idiocy is exactly where the “legislative recognition of prohibited grounds of discrimination”, imposed on the public as opposed to on the state itself, leads.
    So-called “human rights codes” are biased, with left-wing favourites protected while businessmen, those of a perceived upper ‘class’, the ‘1%’, or the rich generally are not (this is from the Marxists’ ‘political correctness agenda’).
    Recall the al-Hayiti case in Dec. 2008, in which an extremist Muslim was spewing filth on the Internet. When a Quebec man tried to bring it to the attention of the province’s human rights authorities, it was dismissed, and the man’s attempt to have the law applied in an even-handed way was described as a “stunt” by an apparatchik of the QHRC.
    Did anybody think to present this kind of information to the Supreme Court so that they could consider all the evidence?
    SCC: “different types of expression will be relatively closer to or further from the core values behind the freedom, depending on the nature of the expression”
    and: “Hate speech is at some distance from the spirit of s. 2(b) because it does little to promote, and can in fact impede, the values underlying freedom of expression”
    and: “McLachlin C.J., writing for the majority in Sharpe, explained succinctly the values underlying freedom of expression first recognized in Irwin Toy, being: “individual self-fulfilment, finding the truth through the open exchange of ideas, and the political discourse fundamental to democracy” (para. 23).”
    Former Chief Justice Dickson’s concept of free speech in Irwin Toy and a year later in Keegstra was like the communists’ bogus version of “rights”: you only have the right to do what is permitted, rather than being able to do anything except that which is specifically disallowed.
    SCC: “Hate speech can also distort or limit the robust and free exchange of ideas by its tendency to silence the voice of its target group”
    We’ll all be silenced if this nonsense keeps up; how do we know where to draw the line on vigorous expression that strays into “hate”?
    Quebec’s “human rights code” lists “political convictions” as one of its protected group qualities; if it had a “hate speech” provision, no political discussion would be possible.
    It gets even worse:
    SCC: “Framing speech as arising in a moral context or within a public policy debate does not cleanse it of its harmful effect (1). Finding that certain expression falls within political speech does not close off the enquiry into whether the expression constitutes hate speech (2). Hate speech may often arise as a part of a larger public discourse but it is speech of a restrictive and exclusionary kind. Political expression contributes to our democracy by encouraging the exchange of opposing views. Hate speech is antithetical to this objective in that it shuts down dialogue by making it difficult or impossible for members of the vulnerable group to respond, thereby stifling discourse. Speech that has the effect of shutting down public debate cannot dodge prohibition on the basis that it promotes debate (3). Section 14 of the Code provides an appropriate means by which to protect almost the entirety of political discourse as a vital part of freedom of expression. It extricates only an extreme and marginal type of expression which contributes little to the values underlying freedom of expression and whose restriction is therefore easier to justify (4).”
    (1) What about a religious context rather than a “moral” one?
    (2) Will this shut down the communists? Or others who mask their hatreds? I don’t want to see political prisoners in Canada, not even communists, but the Court’s statement makes it clear that now the potential is there. And extreme leftists have a nasty habit of calling any expression that disagrees with their own opinions “hate speech”.
    (3) This entire judgment will stifle debate.
    (4) Expression does not have to “contribute” to the “underlying values” of free expression.
    SCC: “Courts have recognized a strong connection between sexual orientation and sexual conduct and where the conduct targeted by speech is a crucial aspect of the identity of a vulnerable group, attacks on this conduct stand as proxy for attacks on the group itself. If expression targeting certain sexual behaviour is framed in such a way as to expose persons of an identifiable sexual orientation to what is objectively viewed as detestation and vilification, it cannot be said that such speech only targets the behaviour. It quite clearly targets the vulnerable group.”
    Many gay people want to be thought of as individuals, for all their individual (“uniquely personal”) characteristics, of which sexual orientation is one of many.
    How did “vulnerable” get in here? Does the Code specify “vulnerable”?
    And how do we know when these groups are not “vulnerable” any more?
    This too is part of the Marxist power grab: supposedly “vulnerable” groups like minorities get top billing, while “powerful” groups like businessmen and those in the perceived top ‘class’ get to suffer the full hatred of the activists. And it is hatred; the rivers of blood in communist nations underscores that emphatically.
    SCC: “The fact that s. 14(1)(b) of the Code does not require intent by the publisher or proof of harm, or provide for any defences does not make it overbroad (1). Systemic discrimination is more widespread than intentional discrimination and the preventive measures found in human rights legislation reasonably centre on effects, rather than intent (2). The difficulty of establishing causality and the seriousness of the harm to vulnerable groups justifies the imposition of preventive measures that do not require proof of actual harm (3). The discriminatory effects of hate speech are part of the everyday knowledge and experience of Canadians. As such, the legislature is entitled to a reasonable apprehension of societal harm as a result of hate speech (4). The lack of defences is not fatal to the constitutionality of the provision. Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction (5). Allowing the dissemination of hate speech to be excused by a sincerely held belief would provide an absolute defence and would gut the prohibition of effectiveness.”
    (1) As before, so much for mens rea, which is supposed to be one of the central concepts of justice.
    (2) “Systemic discrimination” is a dubious concept, and if it is different from intentional discrimination then it too is part of the Marxist power-grab, and should have no consideration in a free society.
    (3) This sentence is totalitarian garbage.
    (4) “Reasonable apprehension” is more fortune-telling.
    (5) This is more totalitarian garbage. So much for the “truth-finding” that supposedly underlies free speech and expression.
    SCC: “The benefits of the suppression of hate speech and its harmful effects outweigh the detrimental effect of restricting expression which, by its nature, does little to promote the values underlying freedom of expression (1). Section 14(1)(b) of the Code represents a choice by the legislature to discourage hate speech in a manner that is conciliatory and remedial (2).”
    (1) Expression doesn’t have to “promote” anything! We shouldn’t have to defend ourselves over every thought we express. We only have to refrain from violence and incitement. The idea that expression should “promote” (or “contribute to”) something is totalitarian.
    (2) The notion of “remedial” should be erased from the law, as it means nothing. When the state orders you to do something you may not want to, it is punitive, period. The only things that might legitimately be considered remedial are restitutional, such as the return of stolen goods.
    SCC: “Section 14(1)(b) of the Code also infringes freedom of conscience and religion as guaranteed under s. 2(a) of the Charter.”
    and: “The remaining prohibition of any representation ‘that exposes or tends to expose to hatred’ any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground is a reasonable limit on freedom of religion and is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
    Again: when anything and everything that is unconstitutional is nevertheless upheld under s.1, then the constituitional provisions are guttted. Here we have the destruction of freedom of religion.
    In future, let’s see how many charges are brought against Christians and how many against persons from other faiths.
    The Supreme Court should be embarrassed to the point of mortification that it has judged an issue of emotion, and of what people might feel.
    Here is a question: Is this a federal or provincial issue? Which level has jurisdiction? The laws against genocide, etc. are federal ones, and incitement and the like should be covered under federal legislation like the Criminal Code. Therefore provincial “human rights codes” should be unconstitutional. Or they would be, if we had a proper constitution and Charter of Rights — one that delineated a proper hierarchy of rights that do not “compete”.
    What Saskatchewan should do, but probably won’t, is to repeal the free speech provisions retroactively, so that all judgments based on them become null and void. The imposition of retroactive law is totalitarian, but to remove a bad law retroactively is justifiable, and akin to the principle that whenever the law changes, an offender may get the benefit of the lesser punishment.
    All quotes in the above are from the summary of the judgment, not the actual judgment itself (which runs to 207 paragraphs, and which I have yet to read). The exception is the paragraph about Chief Justice McLachlin explaining the values allegedly underlying freedom of expression in Sharpe, which is from paragraph 65 in the judgment.

  6. Re above: I’m not sure how the entire second half of the post became italicized; it wasn’t like that in the preview.

  7. Greenpeace’s latest scare campaign: “Untold human suffering” and “deaths of tens of millions” in 2030 because of global warming.
    According to Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace’s International Executive Director, there were five million deaths from climate-related impacts in *2013*.

    Nowhere near enough to make any significant reduction in overpopulation. We’ll need a good pandemic to do that.

  8. Sanity prevails at long last.
    …-
    “Sea Shepherd conservation group declared ‘pirates’ in US court ruling”
    “Judge orders environmentalists to stop aggression against Japanese whaling ships who claim harassment on the seas”
    “A US court has declared the conservation group Sea Shepherd to be “pirates” and ordered it to stop its aggressive actions against Japanese whalers.
    The ruling was issued on Wednesday by chief judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th US circuit court of appeals.
    In his 18-page opinion, he wrote: “You don’t need a peg leg or an eye patch. When you ram ships; hurl containers of acid; drag metal-reinforced ropes in the water to damage propellers and rudders; launch smoke bombs and flares with hooks; and point high-powered lasers at other ships, you are, without a doubt, a pirate, no matter how high-minded you believe your purpose to be.””
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/27/sea-shepherd-pirates-us-court

  9. Neo-AGW Progress Report.
    PR Rating: Excellent Record Breaking Ottawa Snowfall.
    …-
    “On Wednesday, Ottawa broke a snowfall record, with 14.2 cm falling at the airport. The older marker set in 1967 was 11.2 cm.
    The snow was in addition to some 11 millimetres of rain, sleet and ice pellets.”
    http://www.cfra.com/?cat=1&nid=90260

  10. Some days ago, there was a clip about goats yelling like humans. I think they learned it from the guy in the octave clip.

  11. Cancer Industry: Update.
    …-
    “Livestrong president says charity will survive Armstrong drug scandal”
    Globe and Mail – ‎2 hours ago‎
    “The president of a cancer charity founded by Lance Armstrong insists that the organization will persevere in the wake of the cyclist’s admission that he used performance-enhancing drugs.”

  12. Sea Shepard group declared to be pirates. Well, send the Russians after them as I seem to recall they know how to deal with them.

Navigation