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

Diplomacy and Secrecy

I watched a CBC interview, linked from Greenwald's salon blog.

About half way through that video, a former Canadian diplomat comes on for a interview in which he derides the latest Wikileak as bad for diplomacy. His argument, boiled down, is this:

1. The Indonesian gov't was carrying out horrible human rights abuses against the East Timorese
2. The East Timorese told the Canadian diplomat
3. The Canadian diplomat told the Canadian gov't
4. The Canadian gov't could use this information in negotiations with the torturing, human rights abusing Indonesian gov't.

His argument is basically that, should this path of the information (tortured -> diplomat -> gov't) be broken by a lack of secrecy, it would fall apart. Victims would no longer feel safe to complain. Diplomats like himself would be too scared to report.

Seems reasonable, doesn't it?

Except it's bullshit.

His argument boils down to the idea that I should trust Stephen Harper, Jean Chretien or Paul Martin - under cloak of secrecy - to solve human rights problems the world over.

Really? That's your best argument? That political leaders will do the right thing if we just cover our eyes and ignore them?

I have very little patience for that level of willful stupidity, especially as it comes from someone who ought to know better.

The best thing, Mr. Diplomat, is transparency. You know what stops wars? Seeing little girls burnt by napalm. Seeing helicopters pilots shooting up vans full of Iraqi children. Seeing East Timorese slaughtered and executed by the tens of thousands (which, you'll note was not prevented by our diplomatic cables).

Would I prefer to trust the Internet or the government?

I think you know the answer.

Recommend this Post

Erin Larson: Apologies in Advance

I wanted to make this apology in advance, on behalf of the biggest jackasses on my side of the gender divide. But I'm just a tad late.

I wanted to apologize for the sexual slurs that are about to come your way.

I used to think feminism had gone overboard, that some women had taken it too far, that the resultant vector was one of discrimination against men. I was wrong about that. I figured that our over a decade ago.

But I can tell you, young woman, that the jackasses will be out for you. I can't provide much beyond my encouragement and the villification of said jackasses, so I offer that and a piece of advice: spit in the eye of anyone who looks at you sideways.

Shields up. Armour on.

It begins:
"Wonder what she'd say if someone talked about her SEX LIFE.
Matter of fact, who would ever be the male friend of this abomination?"

Yeah. Great.

Recommend this Post

Coulter: Confusing Dissent and Censorship

So the bile-spewing Ann Coulter arrived in Ottawa yesterday and got so frightened by people who were legally disagreeing with her that she ran away and is filing a human rights complaint.

There's nothing in what I've read that suggests anyone threatened violence. Okay, nothing except a quote from Ezra Levant that protesters were "swarming", whatever that means. Since there's no sign that the police arrested anyone, as they are wont to do at the least provocation, I'm going to ignore Ezra and wait for a less biased report.

Here's how it works, Ann. I know that, in your Fox News Bubble, you don't often encounter disagreement. You, O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck spew all the hatred and nonsense you want and nobody talks back. Canada isn't that big on protesting either, really, but we're a little better than the sheep you're used to.

Here in Canada, we have free speech. So you're permitted to come here and, as you did, tell a Muslim girl to "Take a camel" because "Muslims shouldn't be allowed on planes". Ignorant, but you can say it. You weren't arrested, were you? No, didn't think so.

But here's the thing. Free speech isn't just for you. It's also for all of the people who disagree with you. Get it? People are allowed to disagree with you. They're allowed to hold up signs and chant nasty things about you. They're allowed to be quite loud and vocal in disagreeing with you. That's part of free speech. It's called dissent.

I know. I know. You're not used to it. That circle jerk thing you have going inside Fox just reinforces your notion that nobody ever thinks you're wrong. But you came to Canada and were shocked to find people loudly disagreeing with you.

Oh noes!

So you and Ezra decided, instead of facing a disagreeable crowd who would shout down your ignorance and laugh at your stupidity, to make a big deal out of filing a human rights complaint. Good luck with that. When I see protesters arrested for threatening violence, you might have a case.

Until then, I'm going to just assume you're another cowardly, right wing blowhard.

Recommend this Post