Archive for May, 2008
Posted on May 31st, 2008 by Paycheck in Contraception
We’ve all heard the phrase “making love”, but it’s not used much anymore. I think it went out of vogue in the ’80s or perhaps even the ’70s. Today, we’re more into technical phrases for sex. We need to be more descriptive, of course, because with the proliferation of pornography and subsequent legalization of sodomy, we’ve had to widen our vocabulary in polite society. What kind of sex do we have? Well, there’s oral sex and anal sex. There’s masturbation and beastie sex. There’s groupie sex and snuff sex. And then there’s just plain old intercourse.
But there was a time when that cheesy phrase, “making love”, actually meant something significant because it pointed to the reality of what sex was, or at least, was supposed to be. Sex was about love. And love meant sacrifice. In contemporary society today, of course, sex is not about love. Sex is about using another person for orgasmic gratification apart from sacrifice.
In our times, sex is not about “making love” but rather “making war”.
Indeed, if we survey the sex scene in today’s culture, what do we see and read? We read about having “safe sex”. We need to have “safe sex” because sex has apparently become dangerous, otherwise why would we need to have sex that was “safe”? So we are told that we must “protect” ourselves. But that begs the question: from what are we to protect ourselves? Do we not protect ourselves from an attack of some sort? Yes, this particular attack is from sexually transmitted diseases. Therefore, it’s a war. “The War Against AIDS” and other sexually transmitted diseases. But this war, the sex authorities tell us, is on two fronts, not just one. The other front of this war is the war on pregnancy. That’s kind of a disease too that we need to fight against, they tell us. An unwanted pregnancy is almost as bad as an STD so they say. Therefore, we must also be protected against this attack as well.
So if you are in a war, you need some defense, some protection. What kind of protection do we need in this sex war to protect us from STDs and pregnancy? The sex authorities tell us to use latex as “protection”. A condom, in other words. It will provide us with a defense against the STDs and “baby bombs” that might fall on us. There’s even a brand called “Trojan Condoms” that puts us in the right frame of mind for this particular battle. (Personally, I think this latex defense is one big fat lie. But I don’t think they want to admit to the troops that their latex defense is no defense at all. If they did, it would demoralize everyone. There might even be mass suicide because the despair would be so great. So they keep it under wraps…so to speak).
But now I’m getting all confused. I thought sex was about making love, not engaging in war. When you make love, your defenses are supposed to come down. Everything is stripped naked and vulnerable, not sheathed up in latex awaiting the “battle”. But if this sex war is the kind of thing going on externally in the flesh, what is the psychological state of the persons engaging in it like? When a couple has natural sex, they are open to conception of another human being. That is the essence of the sexual act: where love actually becomes another person. The sexual act is an act of harmony and unity. It begets a beginning and a new life through nature. In contrast to this, the act of war does the exact opposite. The name itself tells us something about the nature of the act. Contra-ception : literally “against the beginning…against life” where conflict and death are nurtured in an artificially constructed environment.
When you go to war, there’s usually some form of bodily mutilation and destruction. That’s certainly true in the sex wars we play with one another. The very act of these medical procedures does unnecessary violence to the human body.
There’s the fallout of the birth control pill which leads to breast cancer and other diseases.
There’s the fallout of the vascectomy and tubal ligation whose effects are still being debated. In fact, there’s quite a debate raging over the possible link between vascetomies to prostate cancer, although it is disputed by some other studies. Whatever the outcome of these studies are, men are now breaking the silence of what vasectomies have done to them. Some of them are even losing their minds over it.
There’s the fallout of the failure rate of condoms which have catastrophic effects on those who rely on them for a false sense of security. Then, of course, there’s abortion. That’s the fallout when your sexual organs have not been protected when the trojans didn’t hold the line. Abortion is the nuclear bomb that cleans things up and ensures no “enemy” trooper makes it to your home base. In calling it a nuclear bomb, I guess this description kind of relates to what Blessed (Mother) Theresa of Calcutta alluded to when she said that abortion was the prelude to nuclear war. Makes sense, doesn’t it? Wipe out the innocent in the womb. Wipe out the innocent in the world. Did I mention that abortion is the best predictor of breast cancer too?
In this war, the sex authorities have proposed the above “shields” against the weapon that is attacking us. In the ”battle front” against pregnancy, for example, the sperm is the defacto weapon of the enemy. If the sperm successfully penetrates our contraceptive defenses, then we must call out the “big heavy” of abortion to wipe out any successful assault. But if the sperm is the weapon of the enemy, who is the actual enemy launching this assault? That would be the woman’s sex partner – the man. We really don’t conceive of people who are performing actions which we normally associate with “making love” as really “making war” instead. The same action of hugging someone one can turn into a violent mocking by strangling the person. A loving caress turns into a strangulation. And that’s what’s going on when we “make war” instead of love through sex.
When we “make love”, the language of the body tells the truth of who we are and how we are created. There is a total self sacrifice and reciprocation of what we are to the other person. We give ourselves completely and totally as nature has revealed us to be. When we make love, the unity and harmony is so intense that love is actually personified. In contrast, when we “make war” we lie to our partner about who we really are. We suppress our fertility. We hold back our gift of selves and distort what the natural act of sex says we are doing. Sex is an act of unity in part because our fertility binds us to the other person in fundamental way by conceiving in us another person. In the act of war, there is no unity but only separation. And that’s what contraception is at its core: a separation. It physically separates what nature has bound together. Whether it’s a condom, pill, or mutilation of a sexual organ. There is a violent separation so that unity may not occur with the other person. And we see that separation in the act of sex being played out long after the act is consummated. Because contraception is a lie, because it is a war, we see the fruits of both in the marriage itself. Where contraception is, divorce is also. The sex authorities don’t tell you that engaging in contraception means that the chances of divorce are exponentially much higher. But since the sexual revolution (another war term if there ever was one), that’s exactly what’s happened. And why shouldn’t it be? War is about propaganda, lies, and ultimately separation. It’s all about collateral damage too. In the case of divorce, they’re called “children”. When you keep engaging in sexual war, you can’t expect to be married or together forever. That kind of explains why couples don’t stay together anymore. War, after all, can only last so long before things start to fall apart.
You see, it’s all about war in your body and through your sexual organs. There are different kinds of war, of course. There are the conventional kinds of wars with real guns and bullets and bombs. Then there’s the 21st century “war” that is fought through sex. If you look at what war is trying to accomplish – the subjection of a population or the overthrow of a political philosophy, I’d say the West is near the end of its own civil war: the de-population war. Its population has been decimated and now, coincidentally, the values which under-girded and strengthened it are now struggling to survive.
There will be no facet of society that will be left untouched by the demographic implosion brought about by this war – whether that is the labour pools, pension plans, health care services, or even our fundamental freedoms because we won’t reproduce and then transmit the teaching to future generations. Social liberals who bleat on and on about being “anti-war” have been, in fact, the biggest war-mongers in the history of the world. And right now, our society is being decimated by their war games.
The West has been concerned with external threats to its existence. For the first 40 years after the Second World War, it was Communism. For the past number of years, it’s been Islamic Jihad. But for all the threats of nuclear annihilation in the past and even today, who needs a nuclear bomb when a latex condom will do?
CONTRACEPTION INDEX PAGE
16 Comments »
Posted on May 30th, 2008 by Paycheck in Freedom
Well, we’ve finally made a modest breakthrough with the government. Looks like somebody in the Conservative Party has taken their eyes off of Ms. Couillard’s breasts and actually started to do something about the CHRC.
The Conservative government has introduced a motion to Parliament’s Justice Committee proposing an investigation into the abusive, corrupt practices of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The motion specifically refers to public “concerns” about the CHRC’s “investigative techniques” and their ”interpretation and application” of the section 13 thought crimes provision. You can read the rest over at Ezra’s blog.
This shows the power of the blogosphere can actually get things moving. It also shows, once again, how irrelevant and lazy the mainstream media is to Canadian life. With the exception of Mike Duffy and the National Post, the coverage of the attack on free speech in Canada has been atrocious. The Washington Times has had more coverage than any other paper in this country, except the National Post. What does this tell us? It tells us that the bloggers are hungrier to report real news. Faster. Smarter. And more relevant. We don’t have to wait 24 hours for a second rate job when we can get the latest update in 24 seconds by writers that are just as competent if not more so than Joe Reporter at the National Liberal Rag. Particular thanks and credit goes to Ezra Levant, the captain of the Freedom Five, and all the supporting bloggers around the Internet whose relentless research and criticism hasn’t let up one bit in keeping the heat on the fraudulent practices of the CHRC. And with the Maclean’s show trial coming up on Monday, things are sure to get even hotter next week and subsequently.
I am not convinced whether the Conservative Party is genuine about moving this forward. It is after all just a motion to the Justice Committee. What it wants to do is take some heat off of Nicholson and the PMO. I hope the heat isn’t turned down on either of them because so far, they have kept their arm’s length distance. Even now, they’re keeping a good, long way from the trenches on this. Still, Nicholson’s letter does take away from the Attorney General Office’s moral authority. If the Justice Minister is backing off, what signal does that send to the “truth is no defense” lawyers at the ATO? They don’t have the support of the Justice Minister any more — at least not at the level it was before.
And what about the CHRC itself? The RCMP launched a criminal investigation a week or so ago, and now the government has given its nod to question them about their investigative practices. Before that, the Privacy Commissioner was on the job. That means all this crap is going to come up again and again in Committee and, with any luck, it will filter down to the media for public consumption and outrage.
In light of these investigations, what kind of moral authority, therefore, does the CHRC have to do anything, much less investigate and prosecute Section 13.1 cases? They don’t have the confidence of the law or the government any more. That’s why they are being investigated for criminal and fraudulent behaviour and techniques. In the political world, you’d see Ministers stepping aside until their names were cleared, but since the CHRC doesn’t have much of a reputation to begin with, that little protocol of honour is not really necessary, is it? Still, maybe Jennifer Lynch, Q.C. [Queen of Canada] will have the good sense to send everyone home (paid, of course) until this whole thing blows over. I know that nobody on this side of the fence would complain too much, even if we’re paying the tab. On the other hand, the CHRC Titantic is going down pretty fast. Perhaps it’s time for the employees to start dusting off their resumes, and start looking for a new job while they still have some integrity left. When the ship sinks, employers are not going to look favourably on former CHRC employees who only left because the Racket they worked for was so corrupt it had to be shut down. ”What were you thinking?” comes to mind as a prime question to ask such a job applicant.
No one has respect for an organization that believes it is outside of the law or not subject to the rules of natural justice, and whose rebuttal when confronted with their outrageous secretive conduct is essentially: “Badges, Badges?! We don’ need no stinkin’ badges!”
2 Comments »
Bern, May. 30, 2008 (CWNews.com) – A Swiss organization devoted to assisting suicide has boasted helping 868 people take their own lives in the past decade.The Dignitas center takes advantage of Swiss law allowing assisted suicide, and charges its clients fees of up to $10,000 for its services. The organization reports that its business is increasing, with most of its clients coming to Switzerland from other European countries to commit suicide.
M E D I A R E L E A S E
REAL WOMEN OF CANADA
Court Smashes Government Policy on Drug Addiction
Ottawa, Ontario May 29, 2008
A single judge on the Supreme Court of BC, Mr. Justice Pitfield, handed down a decision on May 27, 2008, that took the olympian approach to judgeship. He did this by concluding that he knows best how to deal with drug addiction in Canada contrary to the policies of the federal government, which has jurisdiction over the issue. The government’s drug policy is to provide for a three-pillar approach to drug addiction by way of prevention (education), treatment and enforcement of drug laws, which has proven to be the only effective method of dealing with drug addiction.
Mr. Justice Pitfield, however, decided that, in his opinion, he preferred the approach of harm reduction, which is to assume that drug addiction is going to take place any way, so why not permit it in medically supervised sites? Unfortunately, drug injection sites merely continue the addiction, allowing the addict to enter a downward spiral to eventual death. Supporters of harm reduction also have an agenda which is to liberalize our drug laws.
Mr. Justice Pitfield also accepted the argument of the harm reduction theorists that the site provides services and assistance that may lead to their rehabilitation. This is contrary to the findings of the Expert Advisory Committee on the injection site, as the site’s main activity is to assist in the continuation of the addiction.
Using the Charter of Rights as his reason, Mr. Justice Pitfield concluded that to deny addicts the use of the site contravenes section 7 of the Charter which provides for “the right to life, liberty and security of persons.”
The problem is that Mr. Justice Pitfield is no authority on drug addiction. He has accepted the argument of those favouring the policy of harm reduction and ignored or dismissed any other approach to drug addiction.
If nothing else, this decision points out the total inadequacy of our appointed non-accountable judiciary using the Charter as their hammer to impose their views on all of Canada, ignoring the will of an elected government.
The ramifications of his decision are far reaching. If allowed to stand, it will permit the establishment of drug injection sites all across the country – bringing more misery and suffering for addicts.
Because of the seriousness of the situation, the government should apply for a “stay” of the decision, pending an appeal. This would result in the misconstrued decision of Mr. Justice Pitfield’s to cease to be binding until finally dealt with by the higher courts. In the meantime, the site should be shut down to protect the lives of addicts.
As we can see, there’s plenty of misery to go around now that we’ve all lost our collective minds.
Isn’t that great news? Safe Needle Injection Sites Everywhere. It’s now a Charter Right.
The right to drugs. The right to die. It’s all about choice. And choice is supreme. Choice is our god. Doesn’t matter what we choose, as long as we choose. There’s no right and wrong. It’s all relative. To be or not to be – doesn’t even really matter any more?
The next step will be for the government to start to promote both suicide and the injection sites as an environmentally responsible solution.
The Death Centres: people go in, body bags come out.
Ever watch Logan’s Run? You should because we’re heading toward it.
3 Comments »
Posted on May 30th, 2008 by Paycheck in Abortion, Contraception
CBC’s Kavanaugh had a fascinating story to tell. He told of spending ten days in England at the introduction of the human embryology bill which similar to such bills in North America allowed for in vitro fertilization and embryonic stem cell research. “Much to the shock of the Gordon government,” Kavanaugh recalled, “the Catholic Church went ballistic, they blew up, they issued denunciations of the bill from the pulpit.”The CBC Radio producer continued: “The newspapers were filled with commentary from both sides, the front page of every paper was about the battle over the embryology bill. From an outsiders point of view it was a remarkable exercise in a democratic discussion about legislation that was proceeding through the House of Commons. It flowed into everything because the Cardinals and bishops in England suggested to Catholic politicians that they might not be able to vote in favour of this legislation. Gord Brown was in danger of losing several cabinet ministers, possibly 30 MPs.
Kavanaugh added, “It was an amazing exercise in democracy, the country was afire. I was actually invigorated and envious because we almost never have these conversations in Canada.”
Significantly he said, “I’ve been thinking about this for two months now. I’ve come to the conclusion that its not our fault, its not the media’s fault.”
“Because the critical element in that story was a church’s willingness to actually engage in public, in the fiercest of terms an issue that they saw as being vital to the future of the nation and the future of humanity. And the difficulty is in Canada churches are almost unwilling to do that, are unwilling to engage in those types of issues, in those types of discussions”, he said to a room now riveted to full attention. (Source)
Like, tell us something we don’t already know. The Rosarium sent off its letter asking 62 Bishops to repent and retract the Winnipeg Statement back on March 31. We received a sum total of one reply. That is completely indicative of a hierarchy which is not serious about addressing the real issues that are tearing Canada part. Last September at their annual conference, the first press release they offered was on Afghanistan. I’m not sure what kind of credibility they have on that particular subject, but it’s not a heck of a lot. We have over 100,000 babies being murdered in this country every year. We have a rampant sodomized culture ripping apart the family unit, and our spiritual fathers are talking about Afghanistan as their first order of business.
It’s now June and we are less than 2 months away from the 40th anniversay of Humanae Vitae, and we’ve heard didly squat from the bishops about this. I suspect they’ll issue some commemoration statement and go back to doing nothing, saying nothing, and meaning nothing to the culture war raging around us.
No Comments »
Posted on May 30th, 2008 by Paycheck in Catholicism
(29 May 08 – RV) The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has issued a general decree regarding the priestly ordination of women.Signed by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Joseph Levada, the decree was published in Wednesday evening’s edition of the Vatican newspaper Osservatore Romano.
It states that in virtue of the faculty conferred on the Vatican dicastery by the Churches Supreme Authority, the Holy Father, the Congregation has decreed that in accordance with canon 30 of the Code of Cannon Law, both he who has attempted to confer the sacrament of Holy Orders on a woman, and the woman who has attempted to receive said sacrament, incur excommunication latae sententiae, reserved to the Holy See.
The Decree goes on to state that should he who attempts to confer Holy Orders on a women , or the women who attempts to receive said orders, be subject to the Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches, then in accordance with cannon 1443 of the aforementioned code, they will be subject to a greater excommunication, the revocation of which is reserved to the Apostolic See.
The text concludes that the Decree is of absolute, universal and of immediate effect. (Source)
A latae sententiae penalty is incurred automatically, and no public decree is necessary. Only the Holy See will have the authority to lift that penalty. The Vatican document eliminates any possible ambiguity about the status of women who claim to be Catholic priests, and bishops who may participate in their supposed ordination. Pope John Paul II declared in his 1994 apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that the Church “has no authority” to ordain women. The Pope added that making an authoritative statement, “to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
This puts the final nail in the coffin for women’s ordination since now excommunication is automatic. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was, in my opinion, an infallible declaration, in any case.
That’s a firm strike against the feminists and any bishop who wants to push the envelope.
No Comments »
Posted on May 30th, 2008 by Paycheck in Abortion
OTTAWA, May 29, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Supreme Court of Canada has chosen not to hear an appeal by the Saskatchewan Association of Licensed Practical Nurses (SALPN), whose decision to fine and revoke the license of a pro-life and pro-family practical nurse was judged unconstitutional by a lower court.
In January this year, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals ruled that the SALPN had acted improperly in suspending Bill Whatcott’s nursing license for his participation in a demonstration outside the Regina offices of Planned Parenthood in 2002.
The refusal of the Supreme Court to hear SALPN’s appeal means that the case is closed definitively in Bill Whatcott’s favour. According to the normal procedures of the Supreme Court, three judges examined the material in the case and declared that it was not in the public’s interest to pursue.
SALPN’s Discipline Committee had judged Whatcott’s protest to have constituted “professional misconduct” and suspended his nursing license and fined him $15,000.
Whatcott admitted in a court hearing to having carried signs with pictures of foetuses and captions saying “Planned Parenthood Aborts Babies”, “Planned Parenthood refers for abortions”, “God’s gift of life” and “choice is abortion”. Whatcott lost his initial case at the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench and his appeal was later dismissed.
But the appeal court noted when finding in Whatcott’s favour that the SALPN disciplinary committee had not addressed constitutional issues of Whatcott’s freedom of expression. Whatcott’s appeal was upheld by the court, which said the case raised “constitutional law issues pertaining to freedom of expression”.
This is excellent news. It sets an important precedent for everyone. And maybe the thugs pretending to be students at our universities will take the hint and stop banning debates on abortion or denying official club status to pro-life students.
1 Comment »
Posted on May 29th, 2008 by Paycheck in Freedom
In this segment of the Warman v. Lemire Hearing on March 25, Doug Christie hammers the CHRC on their cozy relationship with Canada’s Spy Agency, CSIS. Despite constant denials by Steacy that there was ever a formal arrangement with the country’s police forces, Christie is able to show that if there was no formal document in place, the conduct certainly pointed to it.
At the end of this particular part of the exchange, Christie asks Steacy point blank if he, “as a human being”, is not concerned that the CHRC is talking to CSIS about a case involving free speech.
1 This document, sir, it purports to be
2 an e-mail, it could be from Harvey Goldberg or to
3 Harvey Goldberg. There’s an obstruction of who else it
4 might involve. It seems to be 2006, October 13th. It
6 “Good morning. The agenda is
7 attached. We have
8 representatives coming from
9 Ottawa, Toronto, London,
10 Montreal Police Services,
11 O.P.P., CSIS, Department of
12 Justice and the Commission.
13 There will be around 20 people.
14 Please see attachments. Harvey
15 Goldberg.” (As read)
16 MR. CHRISTIE: Were you involved in
17 that meeting?
18 MR. STEACY: I believe — yes, I was.
19 MR. CHRISTIE: So, do you have the
20 agenda somewhere?
21 MR. STEACY: I doubt it.
22 MR. CHRISTIE: Is it the case that
23 the Commission sits down with the police departments of
24 those major cities, Ottawa, Toronto, London, Montreal,
25 the Ontario Provincial Police and Canadian Security
1 Intelligence Service?
2 MR. STEACY: Well, we had a meeting.
3 MR. CHRISTIE: And we don’t know what
4 the agenda is. Are you going to tell us then that it
5 doesn’t involve anything to do with section 13.1?
6 MR. STEACY: The meeting had
7 everything to do with section 13.1.
8 MR. CHRISTIE: So, sir, does it
9 trouble you as a citizen with concerns about freedom of
10 speech that people regulating speech on the Internet
11 are involved with the Canadian Security Intelligence
12 Service, for instance. Does that bother you at all?
13 Did you ever question it?
14 MR. STEACY: You’re asking for my
15 personal opinion?
16 MR. CHRISTIE: Yeah, as a human
17 being, one human being to another, me to you; doesn’t
18 that trouble you?
19 MR. STEACY: It would depend on
20 what’s being done.
21 MR. CHRISTIE: Well, we don’t know
22 what’s being done. We have a meeting, I wasn’t
23 invited, you were. You said you don’t know what the
24 agenda was but probably discussed section 13.1 and
25 we’ve got the Canadian Security Intelligence Service
1 who are a secret spy service; right?
2 MR. STEACY: They’re Canadian
3 Security Intelligence Service.
4 MR. CHRISTIE: Well, do you know what
5 it is?
6 MR. STEACY: Yes, I do.
7 MR. CHRISTIE: It doesn’t trouble you
8 then, I take it, that you’d be sitting down discussing
9 section 13.1 enforcement and investigation with all
10 those police forces in what you’ve called an informal
11 arrangement, including Canada’s spy agency. That
12 doesn’t trouble you?
13 MR. STEACY: No, it doesn’t.
14 MR. CHRISTIE: All right.
15 MS BLIGHT: The witness isn’t
16 being –
17 THE CHAIRPERSON: I have the answer.
18 I have the answer.
19 MS BLIGHT: He’s an employee of the
20 Commission, his job is to investigate.
21 MR. CHRISTIE: He’s also –
22 THE CHAIRPERSON: Don’t minimize his
23 role, Ma’am.
24 MR. CHRISTIE: Many people have
25 discretion too, but that’s a matter for argument.
Source (page 290-292)
1 Comment »
Posted on May 29th, 2008 by Paycheck in Islam
In a lacerating attack on liberal values, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, said the country was mired in a doctrine of ‘endless self-indulgence’ that had brought an explosion in public violence and binge-drinking.In a blow to Gordon Brown, he mocked the ‘scramblings and scratchings’ of politicians who try to cast new British values such as respect and tolerance.
The Pakistani-born bishop dated the downfall of Christianity from the ‘social and sexual revolution’ of the 1960s.
He said Church leaders had capitulated to Marxist revolutionary thinking and quoted an academic who blames the loss of ‘faith and piety among women’ for the steep decline in Christian worship…. (Source)
Sadly, we would need thousands more bishops like this to speak with this kind of authority and frankness to make a difference. But it does kind of whack us back into reality: “religion” does make a difference in a culture. And if you don’t think so, get ready to pronounce Britain’s new name in about 25 years or earlier:
The United Kingdom of Islam.
No Comments »
Posted on May 29th, 2008 by Paycheck in Freedom, LifeStyle Choices
A new book which suggests that the German occupation of France encouraged the sexual liberation of women has shocked a country still struggling to come to terms with its troubled history of collaboration with the Nazis.Like a recent photographic exhibition showing Parisians enjoying themselves under the occupation, the book’s depiction of life in Paris as one big party is at odds with the collective memory of hunger, resistance and fear.
“It is a taboo subject, a story nobody wants to hear,” said Patrick Buisson, author of “1940-1945 Années Erotiques” (“erotic years”). “It may hurt our national pride, but the reality is that people adapted to occupation.”
Many might prefer to forget but, with their husbands in prison camps, numerous women slept not only with German soldiers — the young “blond barbarians” were particularly attractive to French women, says Buisson — but also conducted affairs with anyone else who could help them through financially difficult times: “They gave way to the advances of the boss, to the tradesman they owed money to, their neighbor. In times of rationing, the body is the only renewable, inexhaustible currency.”
Cold winters, when coal was in short supply, and a curfew from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. also encouraged sexual activity, says Buisson, with the result that the birth rate shot up in 1942 even though 2 million men were locked up in prison camps. (Source)
This kind of explains why social liberals are so against free speech.
No Comments »
Posted on May 29th, 2008 by Paycheck in Freedom
The grounds advanced by the BCCLA in support of its late request to intervene are substantially the same as those advanced by the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) in support of a similar request. Given the Tribunal’s rejection of the request by the CCF in its ruling of May 16, 2008 (2008 CHRT 17), there does not appear to be a principled basis. (Source)
I see Rob Nicholson does not believe that the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association should have any voice in the debate over free speech in Canada. It is completely baffling to Rob Nicholson and the Attorney General’s office why an organization that is concerned about the civil liberties of Canadians to advance one of our must fundamental rights, the right to free speech, should have any part to play in challenging the government in the fraudulent practices of the CHRC.
It’s par for the course that Rob Nicholson and the Attorney General’s office, who don’t consider the truth as a defence, should seek to limit debate on this question. Why should we be surprised? Autocratic and Dictatorial regimes seldom care about civil liberties. If they don’t need search warrants, they don’t need citizen organizations getting involved in the messy business of censorship and thought crimes which are, of course, the exclusive domain of the government.
Never mind the CHRC, what about the Attorney General’s office? What other areas of law do they think that “truth is no defence”? It seems to me that if we are successful in bringing down the CHRC, the Attorney General’s office needs to be cleaned out too.
But the problem is not merely isolated to the CHRC and the Attorney General’s office. They are not the only problem in this country. There are Star Chambers all around us, seeking to shut down free speeech. Even our universities think free speech should be an “American concept”.
I think that a focused effort to communicate our outrage would be a very good idea. We need to put pressure on one particular political point to get our message across instead of scattering our efforts against the whole Conservative Party. We need to focus our shakedown efforts on one point so that it hurts one politician. That way, we strike the freespeecher fear into all of them.
I suggest we setup the “Campaign to Defend Free Speech & Defeat Rob Nicholson“. Whatcha y’all think?
3 Comments »
Posted on May 28th, 2008 by Paycheck in Freedom
No Comments »
Posted on May 28th, 2008 by Paycheck in Freedom
A search warrant is a court order issued by a judge or magistrate that authorizes law enforcement to conduct a search of a person or location for evidence of a criminal offense and seize such items. All jurisdictions with a rule of law and a right to privacy put constraints on the powers of police investigators, and typically require search warrants, or an equivalent procedure, for searches within a criminal enquiry…Conversely, in authoritarian regimes, the police typically have the right to search property and people without having to provide justifications, or without having to secure an authorization from the judiciary. (Source)
I just got a real kick in reading that explanation of a search warrant. We all know what it is, but that last little line really made an impression on me. Why is that? Well, you see, in Canada, we have search warrants too. Yes, our police forces have to get them if they want to enter someone’s home looking for something in a criminal case. There are very strict constraints on doing so for the police. In dictatorships, however, no justification is needed at all. The police can just walk right in and take what they want.
But who needs police? Why, here in Canada, you don’t even have to be a police force to access information that would otherwise have to be secured through a search warrant. If you happen to be the Canadian Human Rights Commission, you don’t have to bother with this rather bothersome trifle or even be constrained by the scope of a criminal act.
Nope. All you need to do is ask the police to turn over evidence they’ve collected using their search warrant but without actually having to get one yourself.
Yes, indeed, we’re actually worse than authoritarian regimes because with them, you actually have to be a police force to walk into someone’s home to secure evidence. Then again, maybe that’s what the CHRC really is.
Check out Doug Christie’s examination of Dean Steacy at the March 25 Lemire hearing. Pay attention to the text in red.
17 MR. CHRISTIE: Right. Now, what
18 information did the Human Rights Commission obtain from
19 the London City Police Service?
20 MR. STEACY: I obtained the police
21 report from Detective Wilson and I obtained a CD from
22 Detective Wilson for Mr. Scott Richardson’s hard drive.
23 MR. CHRISTIE: And it wouldn’t have
24 been possible for you to get that hard drive by any
25 other means; would it?
1 MR. STEACY: I could have probably
2 asked for it, for a warrant if I felt that it was
3 necessary in the course of investigation.
4 MR. CHRISTIE: Have you ever obtained
5 a warrant in the course of your investigations?
6 MR. STEACY: Yes, I have.
7 MR. CHRISTIE: In what case?
8 MR. STEACY: I’ve obtained many
9 warrants on many different cases and they aren’t all
10 related to section 13.1.
11 MR. CHRISTIE: Well, I’m looking for
12 one 13.1 case where you obtained a warrant for computer
13 hard drives.
14 MR. STEACY: None, but I’ve obtained
15 warrants to get information concerning section 13.1
17 MR. CHRISTIE: In what case?
18 MR. STEACY: The AOL case and the
19 DeCivida (ph) case.
20 MR. CHRISTIE: The who…?
21 MR. STEACY: The DeCivida (ph).
22 MR. CHRISTIE: And did you obtain
23 information by means of a search warrant?
24 MR. STEACY: Yes, I did.
25 MR. CHRISTIE: Did you go into a
1 house and get a hard drive?
2 MR. STEACY: Didn’t have to do that,
3 I obtained the information one from Canada Post and the
4 other from AOL.
5 MR. CHRISTIE: So, actually you’ve
6 never obtained a person’s personal computer and had
7 access to a hard drive through a warrant?
8 MR. STEACY: I haven’t felt that it
9 was necessary.
10 MR. CHRISTIE: Well, the answer is
11 simply, no, you haven’t. Isn’t that the truth, whether
12 you felt it necessary?
13 MR. STEACY: I thought I answered. I
14 said that.
15 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you did. He
16 answered that he had not — you asked him at one point
17 specifically about computers and he said no.
18 MR. CHRISTIE: Now, if you had
19 obtained someone’s computer, does the Commission have
20 the facilities to access their hard drive and analyze
21 the contents?
22 MR. STEACY: I don’t know.
23 MR. CHRISTIE: Well, have you ever
24 inquired? It’s my understanding the Commission does
25 not have any computer experts on staff who can access
1 someone’s hard drive.
2 MR. STEACY: Okay.
3 MR. CHRISTIE: It’s my
4 understanding — do you agree?
5 MR. STEACY: I don’t know the answer
6 to that. I know we have an IT section and they’re
7 pretty good at doing what they do with the computers at
8 the Commission. I don’t know we have that type of
9 software or if we have that type of facility to do
11 MR. CHRISTIE: It’s my understanding
12 that actually what you have done is used the London
13 Police Service Forensic computer capabilities to get
14 access to an otherwise protected password computer.
15 Isn’t that really what happened in
16 the Kulbashian case?
17 MR. STEACY: No, I wouldn’t
18 characterize it like that. I was investigating the
19 Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team, et al complaint and
20 during the course of investigation I interviewed
21 Detective Wilson and he provided me that information.
22 I didn’t specifically go out and ask
23 him to go get Mr. Scott Richardson’s hard drive and
24 give me a copy of it, he advised me that it was there
25 and I asked for a copy, to the best of my recollection,
1 and he said I could have a copy and he sent me a CD.
2 MR. CHRISTIE: And you didn’t have a
3 search warrant for that?
4 MR. STEACY: No, I didn’t.
5 MR. CHRISTIE: So, I take it that
6 your position is that the police department who obtain
7 a search warrant for criminal purposes can simply take
8 that information acquired under a search warrant for
9 that purpose and give it to you on request; correct?
10 MR. STEACY: Yes.
11 MR. CHRISTIE: Mm-hmm. Did you ask
12 Mr. Wilson if he informed the Justice of the Peace when
13 he got the warrant that he was going to distribute
14 copies of the hard drive to people who asked for it?
15 MR. STEACY: No, I didn’t.
16 MR. CHRISTIE: Have you ever been
17 allowed to receive a search warrant in which you said,
18 I’d like to get these things and I’m just going to
19 distribute them to whoever asks for them?
20 Have you ever thought of doing that?
21 MR. STEACY: The search warrants that
22 I’ve obtained for information have been very specific
23 to discrimination complaints and the information I
24 would have obtained, it wouldn’t have led themselves to
1 never given information such as a hard drive.
2 MR. CHRISTIE: Hmm. Did you check
3 with your superiors to see if it was proper to receive
4 it, since it’s otherwise private and we’re very
5 concerned about privacy; aren’t we?
6 MR. STEACY: My recollection of the
7 file was that there was a discussion about what we
8 should or shouldn’t do at that point in the
9 investigation because Mr. Scott Richardson and Mr.
10 Kulbashian had been criminally charged and whether or
11 not we should hold off from the investigation until
12 those criminal charges were dealt with.
13 It was — my recollection was that it
14 was decided that we could go ahead and continue with
15 the investigation and that the criminal charges would
16 proceed on their own course and we would continue
18 MR. CHRISTIE: Well, my question was
19 specifically in regard to the acquisition of the hard
20 drive, did you consult with anybody to see if it was
21 proper for you to receive it, not whether you would
22 conduct (indiscernible) or anything else.
23 MR. STEACY: No, I didn’t.
24 MR. CHRISTIE: You didn’t?
25 MR. STEACY: No, no.
3 Comments »
Posted on May 28th, 2008 by Paycheck in Abortion
TORONTO, ONTARIO–(Marketwire – May 28, 2008) – The Canadian Labour Congress today gave Dr. Henri Morgentaler with its highest honour, the Award for Outstanding Service to Humanity, for his contribution to the cause of equality for women.
The Award was presented to Dr. Morgentaler, in front of 2,000 delegates to the CLC’s 25th Constitutional Convention in Toronto Wednesday afternoon.
“This year the Canadian Labour Congress is shining the spotlight on the growing wage gap between men and women and the outrageous actions of a federal Conservative government that has turned the clock back on women’s equality,” said Ken Georgetti, president of the Canadian Labour Congress.
“So it is more than fitting that as we celebrate Dr. Morgentaler’s historic legal victory for women in the Supreme Court of Canada 20 years ago – we honour his amazing contribution to the advancement of human rights, women’s equality, and progressive change,” Georgetti told delegates.
The court’s ruling in 1988 declared the law that prohibited abortion to be unconstitutional, thus confirming women’s reproductive rights.
Georgetti noted that at its Convention in 1988 the CLC had passed a resolution stating that: “Choice is an equality and economic issue affecting women”, and that the labour movement would fight any attempt to roll back the clock including the current attempt to do that by stealth through C-484, a Conservative private member’s bill.
The Canadian Labour Congress, the national voice of the labour movement, represents 3.2 million Canadian workers. The CLC brings together Canada’s national and international unions along with the provincial and territorial federations of labour and 130 district labour councils. Web site: www.canadianlabour.ca.
The Convention, which meets every three years, is the supreme governing body of the Canadian Labour Congress.
Ben Johnson won a gold medal too at the 1992 Seoul Olympics.
2 Comments »
Posted on May 28th, 2008 by Paycheck in Freedom
From a Yank reader….
We’ve all been following Mark Steyn’s ordeal with the Canadian Human Rights Commissions – now the bureaucrats of the Great White North are teaming up with our policy wonks and the other G-8 mandarins to strike a blow against our Fourth Amendment and Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
If a proposed “trade” agreement is signed at the next G-8 Summit, it will allow government agents in those countries to seize and destroying laptops, mp3 players, i-pods and any and all storage devices capable of holding any copyrighted media. They do not have to have a complaint against you, the legal status of such media is immaterial and you will have no right to a lawyer. (Source)
No Comments »
Posted on May 28th, 2008 by Paycheck in Freedom
More CHRC thuggery against Bill Whatcott. The fact that the content of Bill’s original flyer attacking Islamic Jihad was TRUE won’t help him one little bit.
For the CHRC, the Attorney General and Rob Nicholson has told us, TRUTH is no defense, except when you are trying to advance CHRC objectives.
No Comments »