McGuinty Just Wanted to Help the Police

In response to the Ombudsman's report that the use of a wartime act to police the G20 protests in Toronto was probably illegal and unconstitutional, our Premier had the following to say:

“We moved pretty quickly on this thing in order to help our police at the earliest possible opportunity,” he said. “We did not take the appropriate steps to communicate this to the public.”

No, Mr. McGuinty. You've got it all wrong.

The problem isn't that you "didn't take the appropriate steps to communicate ...". The problem is that you didn't take the appropriate steps at all.

Your job, in case you've forgotten, isn't to facilitate the police. Your job isn't to protect the people with riot gear, batons, guns and tasers.

Your job is to protect the freedom of the people. You were supposed to protect our rights. It wasn't that you communicated your unconstitutional law in a poor manner. It's that you invoked an unconstitutional law and interrupted the freedom of the people to speak their minds.

That's the unforgivable crime here.

Recommend this Post

Arguing About Hate Crime

Once it had been explained to me, I found it pretty simple.

When you single out a group of people as a target for hatred and violence, you assault a whole community (where "assault", legally speaking, includes "threatening"). So we made a law to make it clear that inciting hatred against a visible group of people is a crime.

So if you beat up a black guy or a brown guy or a gay guy, you're only guilty of "aggravated assault". That means, basically, "causing bodily harm".

But if you repeatedly assault members of the same group over and over again in a way that intimidates others of that group, well, you're not just guilty of aggravated assault in each case, but of "assault" against the whole community. Y'know, seeing as they all have to worry about crazy ass bigots beating them up.

Not complicated.

Unless of course, you've got your blinders full on like these guys over at Christian Governance.

Then it's all about how those pansy-ass liberals are bent on keeping the poor, beleagured white male down. Oh, poor white males! How ever will they cope?!

Recommend this Post

Gun Toting Hypocrites

So everyone has seen that video? You know the one? Where the reporters from Reuters are walking around an otherwise empty street somewhere in Iraq and the the American helicopter pilot reports that they have weapons?



That one. You see, there are actually some spots in that video where it actually looks like a couple of the guys are carrying weapons. Surprise! In one of the most unstable places on the planet, people carry around weapons for their own protections. They might even hire bodyguards to protect them.

Not that they fired at any Americans or anything. No. They did nothing aggressive at all besides point a camera at the helicopter. In fact, they're walking around the streets quite casually, as if taking a tour.

But, decry the knee jerk pro-Americans, they had weapons! They had weapons! Look at 2:45 (or 3:02 or 3:15 or whatever, I don't care). That guy by the utility pole! That's an AK! That's an RPG! Those people all deserved to die! They were carrying weapons! Those reporters even deserved to die for hanging around with people with weapons!

Hm.

Let's think about this a moment. They were carrying weapons and therefore they deserve to die? Really?

Really really?

Because I seem to remember - and this seems to come from the same knee jerk pro America crowd - statements about weapons. Where was it now ... where was it ... Oh, here it is:

* Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Fucking hypocrites.

h/t to the PZ and thanks Wiki.

Recommend this Post

Freedom of Speech and Religion

Freedom of speech is so important and so is freedom of religion.

I'm not just saying this because I want the freedom to not-believe in any religion. I'm also saying it for the Westboro Baptists and other fanatics of the world. Please, by all means, show us your hatred filled, dark, fanatical hearts and so we can see you for you are. Let us see the racists, the bigots, even the holocaust deniers, right out in the open where we can see them.

It's only the bright light of day that can scatter the cockroaches.

So I cling to that inalienable truth: let every person have freedom of speech. If the idea is putrid, then it will go to its death ever more quickly by its exposure.

On another note, if religious people didn't feel free to speak their minds, we wouldn't get to see things like the following either, and that would be sad. Because nothing makes religion silly like silly people following it.



"He's like a Mountie, he always gets his man."

Recommend this Post

Finally, a Worthy Victim

If you've read a bit of Chomsky, you know what worthy and unworthy victims are. In short, a worthy victim (worthy of press coverage and government notice) is a victim being mistreated by an enemy. An unworthy victim is one being mistreated by an ally.

Omar Khadr has been tortured and abused by an ally, the government of the United States of America. Therefore, though there is some press coverage, the government will do nothing about it. The government will say that Khadr was in league with terrorists and that American justice must be allowed to run its course - even if the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled Guantanamo bay to be illegal.

Huseyin Celil, however, is a worthy victim. He's accused of terrorism in China. China is an human-rights abusing enemy and must be confronted. Consequently:

The Conservative government initially took a firm stance on Mr. Celil's case – senior government officials said they saw no evidence that Mr. Celil was involved in terrorism, and the Canadian's case was championed at the highest levels of government in Ottawa.

You can see how this works. Human rights abusing enemies must be confronted while human rights abusing allies must not.

You can see the similarity. Both are accused of terrorism. In both cases there is no evidence (Even if Khadr threw a grenade, it wouldn't be "terrorism"). In both cases they are Canadians. In both cases they are incarcerated in violation of international agreements.

But the Canadian government ignores Khadr as much as possible, pretending American justice will serve Canadian interests while even the U.S. Supreme Court is doubtful. And Celil? The government works to get him in the news, even when we're just talking about benefits for his wife.

Recommend this Post