Archive for: March 2008

What the fiddlesticks is an “HLC,” you ask? Why, I’m talking about Canada’s infamous Human Lefts Commissions®, of course. Sure, that’s not what they call themselves; they like to call themselves “Human Rights Commissions.” I don’t call them that, though (or, to be more honest, I can’t call them that; not with a straight face, anyway).

I’ve grumbled about these things before. The simple fact of the matter is that they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with human rights! What they are about is, trampling people’s long-established –not to mention hard-fought– rights and liberties and ramming a dystopian, leftist agenda down the throats of the Canadian public, whether they want it or not.

By now, just about everybody’s heard about the funhouse rides that Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn and MacLean’s Magazine have been dragged into by these kangaroo kourts. What you probably haven’t heard about (unless you’re a bit of a wonk for stuff like this, the way I am) are all the ordinary folks that have been beaten over the head over the years with this state-sanctioned blunt instrument. By “ordinary folks,” I mean the kinds of people that don’t have the buttloads of money and resources required to stand up to these Ministry Of Love bullies when they get dragged into Room 101. Traditionally, those have been the favourite targets of the HLC thugs. The reasoning is simple, really: like all bullies, they prefer prey that isn’t likely to be able to fight back.

You see, plaintiffs in HLC cases have all their bills picked up for them by the state (i.e., by your tax dollars and mine, whether you approve of what’s being done or not). The condemned, however, is entirely on the hook for every penny of his defense, whether he wins or not. We’re not talking chump change here, either: fighting off an HLC inquisition runs up a bill in the tens of thousands of dollars. That’s just if you win (not that anyone ever has; Miniluv has a 100% conviction rate). The process itself is a punishment before you’re even “convicted” of whatever the hell it is that you’re guilty of supposed to have done.

As if that weren’t bad enough, they only do anything about complaints that fit in line with their personal ideologies. That’s right: they pick and choose who they do and don’t listen to based on nothing more than their own personal prejudices! No guidelines enforced, no oversight, no accountability. Nothing. No rule of law, here; just a few little pisspot tyrants running their little fiefdom any way they damned well please. Ezra Levant points this out himself today in a pretty damn good post, titled “How the Canadian Human Rights Commission violates the rule of law (with my own emphasis added, of course):”

Andrew Guille filed a “hate messages” complaint with the CHRC. He complained that a website called Recomnetwork.org, run by an “anti-hate” group, contained hateful messages that contravened section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, by discriminating against people based on race, colour, national origin, religion and sexual orientation.

So what happened? Did the “anti-hate” group in question, with all of the bigoted remarks on their website, become the first defendant ever to be acquitted in a section 13 trial? Or did Guille pull a Richard Warman — slam-dunk a bigoted website and collect a few thousand dollars for bringing the complaint to the CHRC’s attention?

Neither, actually. The CHRC refused to take the matter to a tribunal hearing, ruling it a frivolous complaint. But look at the grounds upon which this complaint was dismissed: Andrew Guille, said CHRC investigator Dean Steacy, is the “sibling of both Melissa and Chris Guille”, who Steacy implies are racist. Steacy — whose job it is to investigate complaints of bigotry — indeed conducted an investigation. But not into the website and its hate messages. He investigated Guille himself. Steacy met with Sgt. Don McKinnon of the London Police Force to get the low-down on Guille; he spoke with “anti-hate” activists with their own axes to grind and books to sell. None of this was done under oath; none of this was done with Guille there to cross examine his defamers (or to challenge McKinnon’s right as a government employee to disclose Guille’s personal information without permission). But even those offensive procedures aren’t the point: the point is the CHRC simply wouldn’t accept a complaint from someone they didn’t like, for the most tenuous and circumstantial reasons.

Even if their hunches and their gossip was right — even if Guille was, himself, a racist — so what? If a website is bigoted, isn’t it the CHRC’s job (an immoral job, an improper job, but their job nonetheless) to investigate it? Does the offensiveness of the site in question depend on the character of the complainant? Is the question of whether the Canadian Human Rights Act, a law of Parliament, is violated depend on who brings an alleged offence to the attention of the commission?

Compare that sloppy, vindictive, capricious standard to the aforementioned lengths real police and real prosecutors go to, to ensure that the law is applied evenly to all citizens. What Steacy has done here is exactly the kind of arbitrariness the rape shield law was designed to prevent. If a prostitute complains that she was raped, it is improper for the police to say “she has no standing to complain about rape” or “we know that, in the past, she has consented to sex with strangers — no use investigating.” An even more exact analogy would be if a convicted rapist complained of having in turn been raped himself. That would not excuse the police from ignoring the rapist’s own complaint.

The CHRC isn’t governed by the rule of law. It is governed by the whimsy of men — in this case, Dean Steacy, who himself admits to making anonymous posts on bigoted websites.

Say whatever you like about Ezra Levant, but you have to give him credit for being a man that sticks to his principles even if it turns his stomach. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Ezra, as a Jew, found the thought of speaking up for a “white nationalist’s” rights to be a little… shall we say, distasteful? [Come to think of it, there’s probably more than a few chuckles to be had over what Guille might think about being defended by an Agent Of ZOGâ„¢, but those’re some giggles we can save for later.]

I don’t think Ezra’s too worried about that, though. He’s likely thinking about another fellow; one named Pastor Martin Niemöller. You might have heard of him. After 1937, Niemöller was imprisoned in the Nazi concentration camp at Dachau. He wrote something very profound, that goes something like this:

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

In case you think Ezra’s making stuff up, here’s a .pdf of an internal CHLC document for you (taken from his site). There’s also Connie Fournier’s two cents over at Free Dominion.

Then, there’s one other little thing that Ezra mentioned today: besides being wannabe Orwellian totalitarians, they’re also a bunch of God damned racists! No, Ezra didn’t put it quite in those words, but I just did and if some HLC out there doesn’t like it, well…

What Ezra did do was to put up a link to a chart compiled by Marc Lemire (you can get it here, too) and make a very simple observation. The chart lists every section 13 decision up until November of 2007. What Ezra observed was the ethnicity of the respondents. There it was, over and over again: white, white, white, white, white… over and over again. The name “Richard Warman” pops up a hell of a lot, too (but that’s another post).

Come to think of it, I’m going to start a running tally of reasons to get rid of the HLCs altogether. If nothing else, it’ll give me something to do in my spare time (which I have too much of right now, anyway). So, what do we have so far?

1. They only support Leftist causes (sound familiar?).
2. The complainer gets all costs paid while the accused is forced to pay out of pocket (again: familiar?).
3. The very process itself IS a punishment.
4. The conviction rate is 100%!! (No, I’m not making that up) I don’t think even the Gestapo managed to pull that one off.
5. They plant fabricated evidence and willfully use it against the accused.
6. They only prosecute people of one race.
7. The rules change from case to case, as needed to ensure that the accused’s rights are properly violated.
8. Truth is not a defense.

How is it that I just know that that list’s just going to get longer?

Contrasts always make good food for thought, don’t you think? I’m rather fond of them, myself. They just seem to make things clearer for my knuckle-dragging conservative mind.

Take Afghanistan, for instance. Yes, I know there’s a cornucopia of contrasts just waiting to be observed there but for now, I’m going to stick to just a couple of things.

Let’s start off with the Phederal Fiberal Party of Canada®. You know the Fiberals, right? They’re the ones that got us into Bush/Harper’s Warâ„¢ in the first place (don’t mention that to the loopy leftosphere, though; they just hate it when somebody pops their balloon). They got us in, but didn’t really mean it, and now… Well, now they’re even eating each other over it:

Former defence minister John McCallum, in particular, is disarmingly frank, speaking openly about how Canada ended up being stuck with the unenviable job of trying to bring security to the increasingly dangerous province of Kandahar. “We dithered, and so all the safe places were taken and we were left with Kandahar.”

Is it just me, or did McCallum just take a potshot at his old boss? Ah, well, Lieberals turning on each other; what are the odds?

Then we’ve got the people that are actually putting their lives on the line in that foreign land. Soldiers like Sergeant Patrick Tower, Sergeant Michael Denine, Master Corporal Collin Fitzgerald and Private Jason Lamont from the CAF, and more recently, this lad who’s serving with the 1st Battalion of the Royal Welsh:

Fusilier Damien Hields used his grenade machinegun to destroy seven Taliban positions before his ambushers realised he was their main threat. After peppering his vehicle with bullets, they hit the 24-year-old soldier. He had to be dragged off for treatment by his driver after he tried to continue fighting.

“Fusilier Hields showed extraordinary courage under intense fire,” said Lieutenant-Colonel Huw James, his commanding officer. “I was astonished at the state of his vehicle. There were so many holes in it, it was like a teabag. The Taliban did everything in their power to neutralise [him] and Fusilier Hields was having none of it. His actions allowed his patrol to come out of the ambush in which they were outnumbered by three or four to one and probably saved a lot of lives.” […]

Hields was one of 28 Military Crosses announced last week. There were also five Conspicuous Gallantry Crosses, the second highest award after the Victoria Cross. […]

They were on their way back to Kandahar on June 3, driving south in a valley, when the Taliban attacked. One of the Land Rovers hit a landmine and was flipped upside down by the blast. “There were Taliban dug in all around and they started hitting us with AK47s and mortars. We could not see where they were at first.”

Hields followed the trail of RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenades coming towards him and started firing grenades one at a time, trying to home in. “Then I switched to automatic fire,” he said. A grenade machine gun has a box with 32 grenade rounds. “I emptied a box onto that position and you could see all the dust and smoke flying about where they hit.

“After that no fire came back from that position and I moved on to the next one. One or two rounds until I got onto the target, and switch to automatic and empty the box.”

Realising that Hields was the main threat to them, the remaining Taliban fighters homed in on him with their RPG7s, Dushka heavy machineguns and Kalash-nikov rifles. Hields was undaunted and continued firing.

“I got through six boxes in about 15 minutes and we were winning the fight,” he said. “They started it. We were going to finish it.”

One of the Taliban rounds finally hit home as he was bending down to reload. “I felt a sharp punch in the kidneys on my right side,” he said. “It knocked me into the bottom of the [Land-Rover]. I looked down and saw a hole in my body armour and a bit of blood.”

Hields was dragged out of the Taliban fire and back about 20 yards where Lance-Corporal Carley Williams, the female medic attached to the troops, had dashed through enemy fire to set up a first aid position.

“The lads were screaming at me to get into cover,” said Williams, 23, from Llanelli. They saw one round actually pass between my legs.” She was awarded the Joint Commanders’ Commendation for her bravery.

Hields said: “It turned out the bullet had smashed a rib and gone out of me again without touching any internal organs which was very lucky. It was just a flesh wound really.”

He and the other wounded were evacuated by helicopter. After treatment and recuperation, Hields was back taking part in operations in Afghanistan in July. “Obviously I’m extremely proud but I’ve got friends still recovering from injuries and it’s them I’m more worried about.”

Funny, the way some things can look when you put them next to each other, isn’t it?

Not sure if this vid will embed properly or not. Either way, it’s worth a look.

If the vid won’t play for you, you can always click here to see it anyway.

…bitch-slapping Al Jazeera.

I don’t write about this lady very often (maybe I should) but this is definitely one lady with a pair o’ tits that clank. Wafa Sultan (or “وفاء سلطان,” if you prefer) is a Syria-born shrink living in the US who has no problems whatso ever with banging heads with numbnut jihadi bullshit excuse-makers and their ilk.

Check her out as she locks horns with a couple of bullshit peddlers on Al Jazeera (tip o the toque to LGF for finding this first): (more…)

And just in case you’re wondering…

87%

Hey, kids.

Not a whole lot of time for shooting my mouth off this morning so, instead, I’ll just point you over to a damned good post by Hunter over at Climbing Out Of The Dark that I just tripped over.

Ever since the passing of Bill C-484, the usual feminazi, pro-infanticide suspects have been screeching about how the Big Bad Toriesâ„¢ are wrecking Canada’s abortion laws (as if we had any). Well, Hunter takes these assholes to task. And for the record: Hunter’s a chick, so you can take your little Patriarchy Oppressionâ„¢ argumentum ad hominem and put it back in your pants…

Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act had some help in passing into committee, Liberals 27, NDP 1, Bloq 0, Ind 1, Conservatives 120. Not one of those Liberals, NDP or Independents were female, NOT ONE!

ALL Liberal, Bloq and NDP Females voted AGAINST, and one Conservative female. SHAME! They cry about having more women as MP’s, well if this is what we get, no thanks.

Click the link and keep on reading. It’s worth it.