How Can We Get Rid of State Censorship if the Prime Minister is Not On Board?

That question was posed by an NDP MP, for heaven's sake. Joe Comartin tells the Montreal Gazette that he doubts the private member's bill that would put the kibosh on Section 13, the controversial censorship provision of federal human rights statutes, will go anywhere because it doesn't have the backing of the guy at the top:

NDP justice critic Joe Comartin noted the House of Commons justice committee previously examined the issue and found the human rights code was a bit outdated and needed some revision.

But he disputes [the bill's sponsor, Alberta MP Brian] Storseth's argument that the section restricts free speech and must be abolished.

"I don't agree with him," Comartin said Friday.

He also questions whether the bill will receive support from Prime Minister Stephen Harper or the majority of the Tory caucus.

"I'm not sure about his analysis of the membership of his party," said Comartin, adding he hasn't heard Harper endorse the idea.

Conservative party members voted a few years ago at their annual convention in favour of a resolution to eliminate the human rights commission's authority to "regulate, receive, investigate or adjudicate complaints" dealing with hate speech on the Internet.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, who oversees the human rights commission, voted for the resolution.

The prime minister, meanwhile, has said that "everyone has some concerns" about the issue and that it's a delicate balancing act to protect free speech without inciting hatred.

Whenever someone plays the "delicate balancing act" card, you know the balance has been tipped in favour of the censors and it's game over for free speech. The question is why Harper would play that card when, to the citizenry at large, Section 13 is pointless, useless and utterly superfluous:

On Friday, the Canadian Human Rights Commission said that complaints regarding hate speech account for slightly more than one per cent of those received by the quasi-judicial body.

Only two such complaints have been received since 2009, both of which were dismissed, said commission spokesman Craig Carson...

Then why the heck do we need it? If someone's speech is criminally hateful, it can be prosecuted in a regular court, where there's at least the presumption of innocence and rules that aim to keep the kangaroos at bay. We could easily chuck the section and no save the Farbers and Warmans of the land would ever miss it.

About the Last Thing the "Arab Spring" Needs

Sean "Spicoli" Penn in Tahrir Square

Obama's Incoherence a Matter of Policy

Obama's incoherent policy re Muslim supremacists who aim to put Islam in the driver's seat worldwide is: if your M.O. is violent, say your prayers 'cause it's sexy virgin time for you. Whereas if your M.O. is "peaceful," it's pass the tasty samosas, please.

Here's an example of the latter, from Reuters:

(Reuters) - U.S. officials met members of the Muslim Brotherhood's political party, a U.S. diplomat said, after Washington announced it would have direct contacts with Egypt's biggest Islamist group whose role has grown since U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak was ousted. Washington announced the plans in June, portraying such contacts as the continuation of an earlier policy. But analysts said it reflected a new approach to the way it dealt with a group which Mubarak banned from politics.

The Brotherhood is one of Egypt's most popular and organized groups, with a broad grassroots network built up partly through social work even in Mubarak's era.
The contacts may unsettle Israel and its U.S. backers. The Brotherhood renounced violence as a means to achieve political change in Egypt years ago. But groups like Hamas, which have not disavowed violence, look to the Brotherhood as a spiritual guide.
Under the previous policy, U.S. diplomats were allowed to deal with the Brotherhood's members of parliament who had won seats as "independents" to skirt the official ban. This provided a diplomatic cover to keep lines of communication open.

"We have had direct contacts with senior officials of the Freedom and Justice party," the senior diplomat told Reuters, referring to the Brotherhood's party that was founded after politics opened up following the ouster of Mubarak.

The diplomat said U.S. officials did not make a distinction between members of the Brotherhood or its party. "We don't have a policy that makes a distinction, that one or the other is off limits," he said, without saying when the meetings took place...

Memo to U.S. officials: the MuBros, who speak with a forked tongue, are laughing maniacally at your stupidity and weakness, kafirs.

Cherchez le Soros

Was Israel's "Tent City" protest cooked up and funded by George Soros in an effort to hold the line against Israeli "NGO transparency" legislation? I don't know, but this guy sure thinks that it's a distinct possibility.

NDPer Claims Tories, Libs, Would Let Canucki Kids Starve

From the National Post:

WINDSOR, Ont. —A Windsor NDP candidate in the Oct. 6 Ontario election said he was teary-eyed and emotional from watching an upsetting video when he condemned capitalism and wrote that Liberal and Conservative governments would let Canadian children share the fate of starving kids in Africa.

Windsor West candidate Helmi Charif made the comments on his Facebook page in November.

“I’m a poverty activist . . . and I’m very passionate about these issues,” Charif said Friday. “I work with families in our community who are impacted by hunger and poverty. When I watched this video, it’s so disturbing, I cried. I became very emotional. I overstated myself.”

The Ontario Liberal party issued a statement Friday about Charif’s Facebook comments.

On Nov. 3, 2010, Charif posted a YouTube video of children starving to death in Uganda, accompanied with a comment.

“I feel sorry for these innocent kids who are victims of Capitalism and Imperialism,” he wrote. “I am afraid this will happen to us as canadians if we keep the conservatives and liberals in power.”

Liberal party representatives wouldn’t agree to an interview Friday. But they sent the Windsor Star an email saying they received a tip about Charif’s post from someone claiming to be a New Democrat disgruntled over the Anthony Marco “scandal.” Marco, the NDP candidate for Niagara West–Glanbrook, compared Nazism to religion a year ago in a profanity-laced podcast.

Liberal spokeswoman Alicia Johnston said in the email her party reviewed the posting and watched the video Friday morning.

“The message conveys a deep and ugly partisanship that crosses the line,” she said...

No kidding.

When "Rights" Collide, the Strongest Horse Wins

Ontario's "human rights" racket makes a big deal about trying to "reconcile" the ostensibly irrenconcilable--who in society gets to win the "human rights" derby:

As people better understand their rights and wish to exercise them, some of those rights may come into conflict with the rights of others. Depending on the circumstances, for example, the right to be free from discrimination based on creed or sexual orientation or gender may be at odds with each other or with other rights, laws and practices. Can a religious employer require an employee to sign a “morality pledge” not to engage in certain sexual activity? Can an accuser testify at the criminal trial of her accused wearing a niqab? How do you resolve a situation where a professor’s guide dog causes a severe allergic reaction in a student?

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, provincial human rights legislation and the courts recognize that no rights are absolute and no one right is more important than another right. Our laws guarantee rights such as freedom of expression as well as protection against discrimination and harassment based on gender, creed (sincerely held religious beliefs as well as atheism or agnosticism), sexual orientation and disability, among other grounds. They require we give all rights equal consideration. The law also recognizes that rights have limits in some situations where they substantially interfere with the rights of others.

The courts have said we must go through a process on a case-by-case basis to search for solutions to reconcile competing rights and accommodate individuals and groups if possible. This search can be challenging, controversial, and sometimes dissatisfying to one side or the other. But it is a shared responsibility and made easier when we better understand the nature of one another’s rights and obligations and demonstrate mutual respect for the dignity and worth of all involved. Finding the best solution for maximizing enjoyment of rights takes dialogue and even debate.

The OHRC has been taking steps over the last number of years to advance understanding of how best to address competing rights...

No need, really. We all know that there's a pecking order of victim groups, and that in any conflict between, say, Muslims and gays or Muslims and Jews or Muslims and society at large, the strongest horse will inevitably prevail.

National Post Apologizes for Running "Offensive" Ad

My word, it is simply uncanny
What can happen should one remark on a tranny.
Saying, "There's old Chastity Bono,"
Is a societal no-no
In a state that's your master and nanny.

If the TDSB Supports It, It Isn't Vandalism But "Street Art"

Your tax dollars in action, my friends--a Toronto "alternative" school where kids can do what they were doing on the streets as part of an "arts and social justice program":

It's a Stick Up! 

Sat. Oct 1st marks the 6th annual Nuit Blanche, a free all night contemporary art event that turns Toronto's streets into an art gallery from 7pm to 7am. It also marks Oasis Alternative's Arts & Social Justice Program and Oasis Skateboard Factory's first exhibit as an offical Nuit Blanche event. Students will be creating an installation and displaying their work alongside world renowned street artists as part of the International Adhesive Arts Expo. Visitors will have the opporunity to create stickers, swap with famous artists and Oasis students and see Oasis student sticker series based on the theme of education reform. The event is free and open to all ages, hosted by print studio The Baitshop, 358 Dufferin St, Suite 117.

For more information visit:

http://www.scotiabanknuitblanche.ca/

For more info, visit the International Creative Vandalism Adhesive Arts Expo website.

Re Thornhill Voters Falling For "Wellrespected" Farber, Barnum Said it Best

The National Post is predicting a possible election victory for former Official Jew-in-Chief Bernie Farber:

Thornhill could easily turn red as Liberal Bernie Farber, pictured, faces off with incumbent Progressive Conservative Peter Shurman. Mr. Farber, former head of the Canadian Jewish Congress, is a prominent figure in the Jewish community and one of its most outspoken advocates, something that would play well among Thornhill's large Jewish population. Mr. Shurman won a tight contest against Liberal incumbent Mario Racco in the last provincial election, likely bolstered by the otherwise widely rejected Tory policy on religious schools, [York U. political scientist Robert] Drummond said. Federally, the riding is solidly Conservative, but this contest could turn on personality as much as party. "I think the Liberals have a shot," Mr. Drummond said. "[Mr. Farber] is very well-known in the Jewish community and generally wellrespected."

 Cue the Barnum:

Two Figments of Leftists' Imagination

Figment #1: "Islamophobia," a Muslim invention intended to stifle criticism of their faith as is required under the terms of sharia; Pamela Geller unpacks it here. Figment #2: "Obamaism," a New York Times coinage, which Mark Steyn deflates here:

The most dismal thing about that David Brooks column conceding that "yes, I'm a sap [for Obama]... remember, I'm a sap... as you know, I'm a sap" was the headline his New York Times editors chose to append to it: "Obama Rejects Obamaism."

In other words, even in a column remorselessly cataloguing how one of its smartest smart guys had been repeatedly suckered by Obama on jobs, on Medicare, on deficits, on tax reform, etc, The New York Times chose to insist that there is still something called "Obamaism" – prudent, centrist, responsible – that for some perverse reason the man for whom this political philosophy is named insists on betraying, 24/7, week in, month out, spring, summer, autumn, tax season. You can set your clock by Obama's rejection of "Obamaism."

That's because there's no such thing. There never was. "Obamaism" was the Emperor's new centrism: To a fool such as your average talk-radio host, His Majesty appears to be a man of minimal accomplishments other than self-promotion marinated in a radical faculty-lounge view of the world and the role of government. But, to a wise man such as your average presidential historian or New York Times columnist, he is the smartest guy ever to become president.

In part, this is a natural extension of an ever more conformist and unrepresentative establishment's view of where "the center" is. On issues from abortion to climate change, a Times man or Hollywood activist or media professor's notion of "centrism" is well to the left of where American opinion is. That's one reason why a supposedly "center-right" nation has wound up regulated into sclerosis, drowning in debt and embarking on its last decade as the world's leading economy.

But in the case of Obama the chasm between soft, seductive, politico-media "centrism" and hard, grim reality is too big to bridge, and getting wider all the time.

Mightn't we call it "a bridge too far"?

Liberal "Smokes for Votes" Staffer Resigns

Ontario Liberal Party apparatchik Nikki Holland was caught on tape regaling other Liberals with tales of her time in the trenches. In one anecdote, hearkening back to the bad old days when a vote could be bought for the cost of a brewski, she recounted how, on election day, she had rounded up voters of no fixed address and enticed them into marking an "X" for the Liberal candidate by promising them free smokes post-vote.

Initially, the Ontario Premier tried to downplay the vote-buying (this is from the Ceeb's account):

When asked about Holland's comments earlier on Friday, McGuinty called them "completely unacceptable," but said he didn't ask her to step down. "It was a bad joke in poor taste," said McGuinty. "She apologized for it."

McGuinty also noted Hudak was one of six MPPs who voted against the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, the anti-smoking legislation that went into effect in 2006.

As if that somehow mitigates buying votes with Export A's (or whatever brand she lured them with).

Since that lame explanation obviously wasn't going to be enough to satisfy the Sun media "meanies,"  and since there's an election in the next few days, Holland was persuaded to hang it up:

Holland characterized her comments as a "stupid mistake." In announcing her resignation, Holland said she did want the comments to be a distraction to the election campaign.

She did want them to be a distraction? Surely not.