The USA will have to rethink the way they tackle terrorism through the courts - Reuters (more or less). The recent events around the Holy Land case, where a charity was accused of being a fundraiser for Hamas should have us thinking about how much can we really bend a justice system for the sake of national security without abandoning the principle of due process and the rule of law.
Some of the defendants have other terrorist precedents, and it's a stain on their names and reputations, and hopefully their immigration records as well. However the fight against terrorism should be conducted from a high moral standpoint. Trial is, in the ideal case, rightful, public, with evidence, discussions, cross-examinations of witnesses and a jury's verdict. When one is arrested one must know on what charges, and within the rightful cautionary detention time know what the evidence is.
To me the idea of someone being arrested on the grounds of a weakly corroborated intelligence leak and held in custody without knowing what kind of case they're knitting around him is scary to say the least.
I'm leaning towards security certificates here. Although I applaud Harper's commitment to the security of Canadians, I do believe the certificate legislation is a step in the wrong direction. The answer to a heightened security threat is better intelligence services, beefed-up investigation units, efficient co-operation with foreign and international intelligence agencies. No-fly lists are fine, they are less of a media sensation than someone held in custody.
The security certificates are not a good prospect, for they are a dent in the rule of law, especially in the way they treat the right of access to evidence. My vision for a terror trial is the following: CIA reports someone is suspicious, Canadian intelligence and police hone in on the guy and follow him everywhere, collecting data and evidence. When there's enough material for a trial the guy's busted and brought to court.
I know this sounds idealistic, but first one creates special advocates, then special judges and special juries, and then we end up with a two-tier legal system. We shouldn't be going down this road. Instead, we should be beefing up Canadian intelligence services and Canadian police, to make sure Canada remains a beacon of the rule of law and the rule of right.
Note: this post probably won't go on BloggingTories.
Tuesday, 23 October 2007
More madness from QC nationalists
Who do quebecers vote for, seriously? Local Councillor Andre Drouin declared that Quebec shouldn't tolerate any kind of religious or cultural accommodation of immigrants, and advocated sovereignty as the only way to pull out of the Canadian Charter of Rights and enforce this astonishingly wrong vision of secularism. Now, secularism is not about intolerance. For instance France's secularism is commendable, as it bans every prominent display of faith.
People can believe whatever they want and not force it upon anyone or display it prominently. If I want to have lunch and my office colleague is fasting I don't mind. If my colleague wants me to fast too I mind, a lot. If someone else says my colleague has to eat lunch like everyone else, I mind even more. I do mind not seeing a person's face, if it were a Muslim woman I'd rather she wore a hijab rather than a full niqab (which is not a dress prescribed by Islam anyway). But I'm not the one ripping veils off faces.
Mr Drouin's kind of secularism is of the wrong kind. What's more, he brings the whole Quebec into disrepute, as are doing some of the Reasonable Accommodation Commission hearings. The guy should relax.
A little relaxation might also help him stick his head out of his, er, you get my drift.
People can believe whatever they want and not force it upon anyone or display it prominently. If I want to have lunch and my office colleague is fasting I don't mind. If my colleague wants me to fast too I mind, a lot. If someone else says my colleague has to eat lunch like everyone else, I mind even more. I do mind not seeing a person's face, if it were a Muslim woman I'd rather she wore a hijab rather than a full niqab (which is not a dress prescribed by Islam anyway). But I'm not the one ripping veils off faces.
Mr Drouin's kind of secularism is of the wrong kind. What's more, he brings the whole Quebec into disrepute, as are doing some of the Reasonable Accommodation Commission hearings. The guy should relax.
A little relaxation might also help him stick his head out of his, er, you get my drift.
Banning abortion for better demographics
Apparently two members of the Russian Duma (the lower house) introduced a bill to make abortion illegal. No Christian fundamentalism here, they claim it's just to counter the demographic crisis the country is facing. To an uneducated mind (or one of low IQ) the maths is simple: abolishing abortions in a country where there are more abortions than births is the one solution to a declining population that risks driving Russia to extinction.
Hmm, how come I'm not impressed by this reasoning? Restricting abortion requires firstly a strong family culture and a society that doesn't burden single parents. Russia lacks both. Most families are kept together by the women, sometimes the elderly ones, while it is not uncommon for men to just abandon their wives or fiancees when they are about to give birth or when the child is still very young. With life expectancy for males decreasing steadily due to several factors among which alcoholism, having children is not a matter of choice but a gamble for women, where the stake is their own future.
One might say that's fine, but abortions aren't about married couples. Fine then, what's the deal for a single parent in today's Russia? The State doesn't provide anything reasonable in terms of welfare, state schools are still going strong but the job market is weak, and in the most faraway parts of the country there's nothing to do but drink. Top universities are impossible to get into without either being a genius or being an able briber, and males get taken into the army as soon as they're 18. And we haven't addressed the parent's side yet. Try combining enough jobs to pay for living and bills and raising a kid in Russia, especially outside the metropolitan areas.
As usual, mediocre pseudo-politicians refuse to see the roots of the problem and just go the easy way. All at the expense of the vulnerable, whose voice is always the last one to be heard in countries where civic society stopped existing ages ago and is only now starting to form again.
Hmm, how come I'm not impressed by this reasoning? Restricting abortion requires firstly a strong family culture and a society that doesn't burden single parents. Russia lacks both. Most families are kept together by the women, sometimes the elderly ones, while it is not uncommon for men to just abandon their wives or fiancees when they are about to give birth or when the child is still very young. With life expectancy for males decreasing steadily due to several factors among which alcoholism, having children is not a matter of choice but a gamble for women, where the stake is their own future.
One might say that's fine, but abortions aren't about married couples. Fine then, what's the deal for a single parent in today's Russia? The State doesn't provide anything reasonable in terms of welfare, state schools are still going strong but the job market is weak, and in the most faraway parts of the country there's nothing to do but drink. Top universities are impossible to get into without either being a genius or being an able briber, and males get taken into the army as soon as they're 18. And we haven't addressed the parent's side yet. Try combining enough jobs to pay for living and bills and raising a kid in Russia, especially outside the metropolitan areas.
As usual, mediocre pseudo-politicians refuse to see the roots of the problem and just go the easy way. All at the expense of the vulnerable, whose voice is always the last one to be heard in countries where civic society stopped existing ages ago and is only now starting to form again.
Sunday, 21 October 2007
Islamic cleric says "smokers = animals"
Malaysian islamic cleric says: Smokers are like animals, they "did not use their brains because they continued to let themselves be addicted to the habit".
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSKLR9878820071022?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews
This is so stupid I will not bother commenting at length. This person lacks the basic neurons to spot the fact that addiction is not just a rational process. Also, quitting smoking is hard, as many have noticed.
He goes on to say "People who do not want to think are like animals". Just like the crowds of gullible sheep that go hear your and your like's rantings and take them as pure gold. Just like you, Mr Nik Aziz.
I'm tempted to light one up right now. So much for an anti-smoking campaign!
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSKLR9878820071022?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews
This is so stupid I will not bother commenting at length. This person lacks the basic neurons to spot the fact that addiction is not just a rational process. Also, quitting smoking is hard, as many have noticed.
He goes on to say "People who do not want to think are like animals". Just like the crowds of gullible sheep that go hear your and your like's rantings and take them as pure gold. Just like you, Mr Nik Aziz.
I'm tempted to light one up right now. So much for an anti-smoking campaign!
GOP candidates debate: who's more conservative?
Reuters reports Republican candidates battling eachother, trying to determine who's the most conservative and who's got the best conservative track record. I don't know what you people think, but I find this utterly childish. It'd be fine if they debated how conservative policies would be applied, thus sieving out the crazy ideas that can't be trumpeted as election material.
First they woo the religious right, then they lash out at eachother. Hasn't the GOP grown tired of being headed for a loss? Don't they want to put up a good fight? Most importantly, since Karl Rove seems to have quit the scene, haven't the candidates got brains working in their PR departments telling them this is a mistake after another?
Good Lord, their feet will soon lack flesh to shoot into. Or am I not getting something? Polls aside, I would be giving the Democrats higher odds anytime.
First they woo the religious right, then they lash out at eachother. Hasn't the GOP grown tired of being headed for a loss? Don't they want to put up a good fight? Most importantly, since Karl Rove seems to have quit the scene, haven't the candidates got brains working in their PR departments telling them this is a mistake after another?
Good Lord, their feet will soon lack flesh to shoot into. Or am I not getting something? Polls aside, I would be giving the Democrats higher odds anytime.
Paedo should rot in jail
Alleged paedophile Chris Neil is not under charges in British Columbia, his home province. Well he should be. His crimes are heinous and as far as I know Canada should have a law permitting people to be prosecuted for such crimes committed abroad. And if it doesn't, it's about time it got one.
Overall this man should do his time in jail in every country where he committed his abuses. Surely spending the rest of his life in Thai, Vietnamese and Cambodian jails will be a deterrent for other similar perverts, and they'll think twice before engaging in their twisted fantasies.
And just in case he was still alive when he comes out of the last south Asian jail, there should be some good restraining orders waiting for him at home.
If this man is the one Interpol was looking for, he doesn't deserve to ever get out of jail!
Overall this man should do his time in jail in every country where he committed his abuses. Surely spending the rest of his life in Thai, Vietnamese and Cambodian jails will be a deterrent for other similar perverts, and they'll think twice before engaging in their twisted fantasies.
And just in case he was still alive when he comes out of the last south Asian jail, there should be some good restraining orders waiting for him at home.
If this man is the one Interpol was looking for, he doesn't deserve to ever get out of jail!
Saturday, 20 October 2007
Wooing radical Christians won't do GOP any good
Reuters reports Giuliani courting the religious right in the USA, just like Romney. Although this could be a good strategy to win votes in an upcoming election, it is doubtlessly a shot in the foot if long-term voter support is sought.
OK, so Giuliani got a lukewarm reception because those present couldn't face the fact he is for abortion rights, while Romney keeps getting bad looks because of his Mormon faith. It looks like the Republican candidates are trying to woo the nastiest and, among their ranks, dumbest people in the country. Despite the presence of intellectual people in the religious right galaxy it is beyond question that many of the nasties are probably unable to spot their brain from cow dung.
Although I recognize everyone's right to base their vote on whatever characteristic they deem of value in the candidate, I also advocate candidates shaping public opinion instead of just following. The extremes of the religious right's ideology do the country no good and will never do. If we followed their ideas we'd be living in caves. Fine with debating deeply rooted moral values, fine with disagreeing on them. But for Christ's sake sometimes the debate resembles two deaf men shouting at each other. Having these people's heads stuck in their backsides (here's the cause of the narrow vision or lack thereof) is of no help either. Many of them would gladly tread on universally cherished freedoms and rights. R.I.P America the land of freedoms if the religious right gets real power.
This courting of people who would love to impale anyone who differs from them leaves the centre ground open for the Democrats to conquer and secure. By the time Republicans awake to a series of defeats everywhere except their much-coveted Bible Belt it will be too late to recapture the centre.
I say the Republican candidates should take that stain on America's freedoms that is the religious right and try to wash it off by bringing it slowly towards accepting the notion of freedom and individual rights. These preachers should try to conquer people's minds rather than force their ideology on others through the government. And candidates should come across as strong and determined leaders rather than cihuahuas on a leash held by lobbies.
They should do it for the sake of their party's future.
OK, so Giuliani got a lukewarm reception because those present couldn't face the fact he is for abortion rights, while Romney keeps getting bad looks because of his Mormon faith. It looks like the Republican candidates are trying to woo the nastiest and, among their ranks, dumbest people in the country. Despite the presence of intellectual people in the religious right galaxy it is beyond question that many of the nasties are probably unable to spot their brain from cow dung.
Although I recognize everyone's right to base their vote on whatever characteristic they deem of value in the candidate, I also advocate candidates shaping public opinion instead of just following. The extremes of the religious right's ideology do the country no good and will never do. If we followed their ideas we'd be living in caves. Fine with debating deeply rooted moral values, fine with disagreeing on them. But for Christ's sake sometimes the debate resembles two deaf men shouting at each other. Having these people's heads stuck in their backsides (here's the cause of the narrow vision or lack thereof) is of no help either. Many of them would gladly tread on universally cherished freedoms and rights. R.I.P America the land of freedoms if the religious right gets real power.
This courting of people who would love to impale anyone who differs from them leaves the centre ground open for the Democrats to conquer and secure. By the time Republicans awake to a series of defeats everywhere except their much-coveted Bible Belt it will be too late to recapture the centre.
I say the Republican candidates should take that stain on America's freedoms that is the religious right and try to wash it off by bringing it slowly towards accepting the notion of freedom and individual rights. These preachers should try to conquer people's minds rather than force their ideology on others through the government. And candidates should come across as strong and determined leaders rather than cihuahuas on a leash held by lobbies.
They should do it for the sake of their party's future.
Parti Quebecois gone bananas
Outrageous, discriminatory, nuts as a squirrel's dinner: defining the recent Parti Quebecois proposal to create basically two tiers of citizenship requires no big effort.
Understandably, the PQ platform consists mainly of defending the French language and getting Quebec as close to independence from anglophone Canada. What makes their agenda unacceptable for anyone with a pinch of salt in their head is their aim to cut through people's rights with a chainsaw. From Laws 101 and 104 (if I remember correctly), which all but ban the right to choose an anglophone education, now the PQ goes to the lengths of creating a Quebec citizenship and barring non-francophones from any kind of political participation, including the tabling of petitions at the National Assembly.
Firstly, there is no such thing as a provincial citizenship: either you are a Canadian or not. If Quebec wants its citizenship then it has to leave the Federation, and it doesn't seem likely.
Secondly, if they are so heavy on Quebec values then equality must be among them. What they are proposing goes against their own platform, since discriminating on the basis of language is a form of racism.
Thirdly, if the PQ is so aiming to avoid the formation of ghettos and separate communities among immigrants by demanding they assimilate Quebec culture, proposing this nonsense law creates a government-sanctioned ghetto: non-francos denied every political right in their own country.
Although I doubt this will ever pass, it is a stain on the PQ and, thanks to the media attention, on the reputation of Quebec and Canada as a whole. In a country that prides itself of its multiculturalism, open-mindedness and excellent immigration record the existence of such proposals is an unacceptable offence. Pauline Marois offends me, decent Quebecers, Canada and anyone who places any kind of value on equality and rights. I hope she gets a nasty rash.
This reeks of racism, and I would be curious to see how well it would go down with Canadian and international courts and human rights watchdogs. I'd love to see the PQ investigated for this, it can't be legal!
I have a proposal. If the Federation applied the same rule for English anyone without a good knowledge of English would be denied election to the Parliament in Ottawa. This would rid us of Stephane Dion overnight. Who would we laugh at, then?
Understandably, the PQ platform consists mainly of defending the French language and getting Quebec as close to independence from anglophone Canada. What makes their agenda unacceptable for anyone with a pinch of salt in their head is their aim to cut through people's rights with a chainsaw. From Laws 101 and 104 (if I remember correctly), which all but ban the right to choose an anglophone education, now the PQ goes to the lengths of creating a Quebec citizenship and barring non-francophones from any kind of political participation, including the tabling of petitions at the National Assembly.
Firstly, there is no such thing as a provincial citizenship: either you are a Canadian or not. If Quebec wants its citizenship then it has to leave the Federation, and it doesn't seem likely.
Secondly, if they are so heavy on Quebec values then equality must be among them. What they are proposing goes against their own platform, since discriminating on the basis of language is a form of racism.
Thirdly, if the PQ is so aiming to avoid the formation of ghettos and separate communities among immigrants by demanding they assimilate Quebec culture, proposing this nonsense law creates a government-sanctioned ghetto: non-francos denied every political right in their own country.
Although I doubt this will ever pass, it is a stain on the PQ and, thanks to the media attention, on the reputation of Quebec and Canada as a whole. In a country that prides itself of its multiculturalism, open-mindedness and excellent immigration record the existence of such proposals is an unacceptable offence. Pauline Marois offends me, decent Quebecers, Canada and anyone who places any kind of value on equality and rights. I hope she gets a nasty rash.
This reeks of racism, and I would be curious to see how well it would go down with Canadian and international courts and human rights watchdogs. I'd love to see the PQ investigated for this, it can't be legal!
I have a proposal. If the Federation applied the same rule for English anyone without a good knowledge of English would be denied election to the Parliament in Ottawa. This would rid us of Stephane Dion overnight. Who would we laugh at, then?
Thursday, 18 October 2007
On mores and wasted wages
The BBC reports that protests in Bolivia involve the trashing of bars and brothels. The accusation: they sell alcohol to minors and distract the males of the community (not surprising).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7049155.stm
Am I the only one to be amused at the irony of all this? With our civilized societies having to frequently face underage drinking (and related health and safety problems) and overt prostitution, those we deem to be our own backyard (and bit*h) can sometimes show a little more mores, albeit not when it comes to protecting property.
On another note, the news of members of the new advisory panel on Afghanistan getting stupidly high wages (close to a grand a day) beggars belief. This is an unacceptable waste of money, considering also that these people likely have another job and another wage. With the course for Afghanistan mostly determined, what is the purpose of this panel? Possibly the purpose is to come up with the conclusion that Canada can't withdraw anytime soon. This is the harsh reality, despite the Liberals advocating the "run" tactic. But with such wages, I doubt the outcome could be different anyway.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7049155.stm
Am I the only one to be amused at the irony of all this? With our civilized societies having to frequently face underage drinking (and related health and safety problems) and overt prostitution, those we deem to be our own backyard (and bit*h) can sometimes show a little more mores, albeit not when it comes to protecting property.
On another note, the news of members of the new advisory panel on Afghanistan getting stupidly high wages (close to a grand a day) beggars belief. This is an unacceptable waste of money, considering also that these people likely have another job and another wage. With the course for Afghanistan mostly determined, what is the purpose of this panel? Possibly the purpose is to come up with the conclusion that Canada can't withdraw anytime soon. This is the harsh reality, despite the Liberals advocating the "run" tactic. But with such wages, I doubt the outcome could be different anyway.
Wednesday, 17 October 2007
Liberals are done with
Dion ordered his party to let the Throne Speech pass, signifying his downfall. His performance was dismally uninspiring. Following that, his statements such as "I want to become Prime Minister" and "it worked for [Harper], it will work for me", used to justify the Liberal's abstention just testify to his weakness and ultimate political ineptness.
Come on, I'm no politician and I know all too well that such phrases would make me the country's laughing stock. Poor Dion.
The Liberals want to bring the government down on a confidence issue, as my friend Tim aptly remarked, so that they can choose what the election will be fought about. This means the Conservative government now has the chance to bring in the legislation Canadians want and the Liberals can't stomach but can't vote down lest they completely lose people's trust.
The wall is broken, now send the right troops through the breach: the bills that the CPC and the people of Canada feel strongly positive about. Once those are through, go for the bills calling on Conservative principles but don't have such a broad approval, bills that should trigger an election, on issues the CPC can really shape public opinion on.
From today the Liberals will only get hammered more and more. Bring it on.
Come on, I'm no politician and I know all too well that such phrases would make me the country's laughing stock. Poor Dion.
The Liberals want to bring the government down on a confidence issue, as my friend Tim aptly remarked, so that they can choose what the election will be fought about. This means the Conservative government now has the chance to bring in the legislation Canadians want and the Liberals can't stomach but can't vote down lest they completely lose people's trust.
The wall is broken, now send the right troops through the breach: the bills that the CPC and the people of Canada feel strongly positive about. Once those are through, go for the bills calling on Conservative principles but don't have such a broad approval, bills that should trigger an election, on issues the CPC can really shape public opinion on.
From today the Liberals will only get hammered more and more. Bring it on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)