My latest at Defend Geert Wilders

Check it out: Support Geert Wilders in London on 5th March 2010.

Meanwhile: Dutch MP’s trial reminiscent of reporter’s post-9/11 writings; and Advised by the Toilet Duck.

Get well soon, Binks!

Blogmeistro Binks, over at Free Canuckistan, is taking a hiatus of his own for health reasons. Go visit his blog and wish him well - nothing makes a blogger feel more validated than high traffic stats. It makes all the hateful comments, lost time, burnt-out eyeballs, blank stares, and brushes with depression worthwhile.

A fond farewell to The Lynch Mob

Some readers may know of another blog called The Lynch Mob which I started up last year, which dealt chiefly with Canada's censorious Human Rights Commissions. Well, the blog's still running, but I have decided to step down as the fellow running it. I explain it all in this post:

Winding things down

Hi. Walker Morrow, here.
Well, it’s been fun.
Truly, it has. We’ve covered a lot of issues in the short time of the Mob’s existence, and I hope that we’ve been able to entertain and inform.
But it’s time that I wound things down, and stopped writing for the Mob.
The Lynch Mob was actually started up with, really, one goal in mind: to look into the possibility that the CHRC’s Chief Commissioner, Jennifer Lynch, was compiling an enemies’ list of her critics.
Two freedom of information requests later, and we had our answer: no. Well, as far as we were ever going to find out. Later, Terry O’Neill, conducting his own investigation, discovered that freedom of information certainly doesn’t come cheap – unless you shell out tens of thousands of dollars on a routine basis, in which case your perspective on such matters might be different from, say, mine.
Meanwhile, we here at the Mob covered two – count ‘em, two – sets of testimony before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights’ investigation into Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act – and then some. We covered some of the CHRC’s spending habits, and found that, as a whole, they’re spending way too much for the job that they’re doing. We covered the Boissoin appeal of Lori Andreachuk’s censorious AHRT ruling before the Court of Queen’s Bench, Alberta – and Stephen Boissoin’s victory. And we covered many other cases and decisions from Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals across the country.
In short, I would say that we were damned good at what we did.
So why am I walking away? Well, I have my reasons, plural. But the only reason, singular, that I’m going to supply is that, simply put, I think I’ve done all I need to do with the Lynch Mob. I’ve covered the issues that I created the Mob to cover, and it’s time for me to move on.
But don’t lose all hope. The Lynch Mob will remain after my departure under the guiding hand of frequent contributor Scary Fundamentalist, who has generously volunteered to keep things going. Thanks, Scary.
And thank you very much – really - to everyone who contributed to this site while under my ownership: Mbrandon8026 from Freedom Through Truth; Don Sharpe from Sharpe Stick; Jesse Ferreras; Eowyn – or as she was known in these parts, Theodensdaughter – from Shooting Star; Rebekah from The Miss Marprelate Tracts; Xanthippa from Xanthippa’s Chamberpot; Marc Lemire from The Freedomsite Blog; Natasha from MooseandSquirrel.ca; Truepeers from Covenant Zone; and others to whom I am very grateful. You’ve all been wonderful, and I couldn’t have done it without you. And if I’m forgetting anybody to thank, it’s not out of malice but out of pure forgetfulness, and I apologise if that’s the case. Finally, of course, thank you to Scary Fundamentalist for his posting over the months.
Thank you to everybody who commented here to keep us – me primarily – in line, and to everyone who linked to this humble site and helped to make it what it was. Especially Binks at Free Canuckistan, and Mark and Connie at Free Dominion: you’ve been great; your encouragement was greatly appreciated.
And thank you, dear reader, for choosing us. I hope that under my oversight the Lynch Mob was able to entertain and inform you, and keep you involved in the HRC debate, in its own small way. And it’s not like we won’t be seeing each other again – drop on by my personal blog for the occasional post, some of which might just have to do with Canada’s HRCs, and maybe I’ll see you around the comments here as the resident alumnus.
Finally, I would just like to say to the contributors, my fellow bloggers, the commenters and the readers: keep fighting. We’re mad as hell, and we’re not gonna take it any more.

It's been fun, y'all.

Bill Gates: What good are you?

Meh. Censorship in China - what's the big deal, right?

Web censorship in China? Not a problem, says Bill Gates

After pouring billions of dollars into the global fight against malaria and rebranding Microsoft in a more cuddly, human way, Bill Gates had just about shaken off accusations that he represented all that was unappealing about aggressive ­American capitalism.
But today his reinvention suffered something of a setback when he played down China's attempts to stifle dissent on the internet as "very limited".
Less than two weeks after Google said it planned to uncensor its Chinese search engine in protest at attempts to break into the email accounts of human rights activists, Gates criticised his rival's decision and insisted that agreeing to Beijing's demands was just part of doing business in the country. "You've got to decide: do you want to obey the laws of the countries you're in or not? If not, you may not end up doing business there," he told ABC's Good Morning America programme.
He also brushed aside accusations that Microsoft has been complicit in helping filter the web by saying that it was not an issue because any censorship could be circumvented with technical knowledge. "Chinese efforts to censor the internet have been very limited," he said. "It's easy to go around it, so I think keeping the internet thriving there is very important."
Gates's comments echo those last week by Microsoft chief executive, Steve Ballmer, who took a swipe at Google by suggesting that the company had over-reacted in China. "People are always trying to break into other people's data," he said on Friday. "There's always somebody trying to break into Microsoft."

Read the rest here. H/t to Free Dominion.

I don't have a huge amount of respect for Microsoft. They create mediocre programs - half of which require other Microsoft programs to work with, and the only reason that we put up with it is because they've got a monopoly on the market.

But that being said, I do believe that I've lost respect for Bill Gates after this: co-operation with censors just isn't very awe-inspiring. And while Google may have its own problems, they're taking at least a symbolic stand against China's regime. The least that Bill Gates could do would be to support Google's move, instead of coming across as a greedy shmuck.

I mean, really. This is Bill Gates. You'd think that he would be one of the few business-owners in the world with enough balls to stand up for something so basic as freedom.

My latest for Defend Geert Wilders

Check it out: Stop the Trial of Geert Wilders.

Declaring war on a state of mind

H/t to Binks on this one. It seems that the Quebec government has declared its own form of warfare against homophobia. Via the Catholic Civil Rights League:

Quebec government declares "war" against homophobia

By Douglas Farrow

The Québec policy against homophobia was released in December with introductory fanfare from Premier Jean Charest and Justice Minister Kathleen Weil, who is officially “the minister responsible for the fight against homophobia.” It diagrams a full-scale assault, to be coordinated by an inter-departmental committee, against “homophobic attitudes and behaviour patterns” and “sets out the government’s goal of removing all the obstacles” to full recognition of LGBT interests and modes of life. What is thus promulgated is no ordinary policy document, for it aims at the conversion, not merely of this or that piece of public infrastructure, but of the psychological and moral and sexual infrastructure of a generation. It is not directed at creating a situation of legal equality – that, it proudly proclaims, has already been accomplished – but at creating “a society free of prejudice with regard to sexual diversity.”

Herewith the Ministry of Justice moves boldly and decisively into territory once reserved for the voluntary organs of civil society. Not only is homophobia to be eradicated “at all levels of society,” it is to be eradicated as a matter of government policy and by means of government action. “The first challenge,” we are told, “is to ‘demystify’ sexual identities and orientations and the realities they involve. Prejudice is the foundation for homophobic attitudes and behaviour, and because of prejudice, sexual minority members are often forced to keep their sexual identity quiet, perpetuating the lack of understanding and the rejection of difference.”So the government will undertake to “raise awareness of the realities” and promote respect for the rights of sexual minorities, to “rally all players in society” to their cause, and to “ensure a concerted approach” to the matter in all branches of the bureaucracy.

Read the rest here.

I'll only say this once: the regulation of opinion has nothing to do with the business of government.

Period.

I realize that homophobia is undoubtedly a problem. I'm not gay, so I wouldn't know. But I can sympathise: I'm sure that gay people have to put up with more than their fair share of hostility and estrangement. And if the Quebec government wishes to enforce a policy of 'acceptance' within government offices, hey, that's great. I think it'll be a rather ridiculous, feel-good policy to have, but whatever.

But, no matter how much Charest and the gang might wish it to be so, all citizens of Quebec are not its employees. They can't be bossed around about 'correct' behavior - they can't be told how to feel.

And I don't just say this in a 'you can't tell me what to do' sort of way - although it applies in that sense as well. I mean that it's literally impossible to tell somebody how to feel.

That's all there is to it. And if the Quebec government thinks otherwise, then its 'war' is a delusion; not that this will stop the inevitable casualties should such a delusion be enforced in any way by the State ( as opposed to simply being a feel-good series of statements, or whathaveyou ).

So, all around: bad idea.

Another one for the censorship files?

Well, perhaps not censorship exactly - but certainly a form of intimidation which could lead to a chill on free speech; which is, perhaps, precisely the intended result.

What am I talking about? Well, mosey on over to Harry's Place and you'll find out:

Anglican Vicar Uses Police To Intimidate Blogger

This is a guest post by Seismic Shock.

As some people have noticed, I’ve been rather quiet in blogging about the Reverend Stephen Sizer’s activities of late.
After all, what more can be said of a man who forwards emails from Holocaust deniers, shares platforms with Holocaust deniers, and shamelessly flauntshis anti-Zionist theology before Iran’s apocalyptic Holocaust-denying regime? As Iranian pastors are arrested and house churches closed down, why is the Khomeinist regime translating Sizer’s book on Christian Zionism into Farsi? How many more times can I point all this out?
Yet there’s another reason why I’ve been quiet, and whilst I’ve held my tongue and my pen for a while, now is time to speak.
At 10am on Sunday 29th November 2009, I received a visit from two policemen regarding my activities in running the Seismic Shock blog. (Does exposing a vicar’s associations with extremists make me a criminal?, I wondered initially). A sergeant from the Horsforth Police related to me that he had received complaints via Surrey Police from Rev Sizer and from Dr Anthony McRoy – a lecturer at the Wales Evangelical School of Theology – who both objected to being associated with terrorists and Holocaust deniers.
(Context: Sizer has associated with some very nasty terrorists and Holocaust deniers; McRoy has delivered a paper at a Khomeinist theological conference in Iran comparing Hezbollah’s struggle against Israel via suicide bombing with the Christian’s struggle against sin via the atoning death of Jesus, and describes the world’s most prominent Holocaust denier as an “intelligent, humble, charismatic, and charming” man who “gives quick, extensive and intelligent answers to any question, mixed with genial humour”).
The sergeant made clear that this was merely an informal chat, in which I agreed to delete my original blog (http://seismicshock.blogspot.com) but maintain my current one (http://seismicshock.wordpress.com). The policeman related to me that his police force had been in contact with the ICT department my previous place of study, and had looked through my files, and that the head of ICT at my university would like to remind me that I should not be using university property in order to associate individuals with terrorists and Holocaust deniers (I am sure other people use university property to make political comments, but nevermind).

Read the rest here.

Now, this is all well and disturbing enough. I mean, police checking in on someone for something that they wrote online about other people? There's something rather disquieting about the thought that uniformed officers would have nothing better to do.

However, it appears that in the wider context, there's more to the story. Via Roger Pearse:

UPDATE: The police have now issued a statement:

A West Yorkshire Police spokesman said: “As a result of a report of harassment, which was referred to us by Surrey Police, two officers from West Yorkshire Police visited the author of the blog concerned. The feelings of the complainant were relayed to the author who voluntarily removed the blog. No formal action was taken.

I have also been reading the Seismic Shock blog. It’s somewhat distasteful. The general impression is of a campaign of posts designed to smear Steven Sizer and Anthony McRoy, in order to intimidate them from expressing their own views. This, of course, is also an attack on free speech. (I am not a combatant either way on the political issues between the two sides).

I find myself torn. A case of genuine harassment — of net-stalking — is a different matter from issues of free speech.

In the UK, only the rich can go to law. Everyone else is basically without options. If someone started a campaign of vilification against me, designed to intimidate me from expressing my views, I would have few options but to go to the police. It seems that this may be what has happened here. What else could Sizer and McRoy do? Material pumping out on the web, designed and arranged to smear them, drip drip drip?

But … I am still uncomfortable with this. Do we want bloggers being vetted by the police? Yet, what do I do, if some anonymous swine sets up a hate site directed against me, and designed to ruin my reputation, cost me my job, my career, whatever? What would you do?
I still don’t feel that we have got to the bottom of all the issues here. But it is clearly more complex than I first thought.

UPDATE 2: I’m beginning to get a very bad feeling about the claims about “freedom of speech” being deployed here. The more I look into this, the more like a scam this whole business looks. Is there any freedom of speech issue here? Or is this a scam operated by a rogue without a conscience to accuse others of what he was attempting to do himself, namely to injure and stifle people whose views he disapproves of?
All of us, I take it, are in favour of free speech online. None of us are keen to have the police appear if we say something someone else doesn’t like.

But that doesn’t seem to be the issue. The Seismic Shock blog ran a campaign targeting Sizer and McRoy personally, again and again and again. Every post was “Anti-semite! Anti-semite!” and so on. That’s not free speech; that’s intimidation. The object, plainly, was to demonise these two men, and thereby silence them. The comments added by others on these posts are often simply hateful.

[...]

I would suggest everyone interested in free speech start looking at what Seismic Shock has been doing. If I am right, he hasn’t been exercising free speech, but instead has been running a campaign of intimidation, designed to stifle the free speech of Sizer and McRoy. He’s been questioned because this was harassment, pure and simple, rather than a political offence.

Read the rest here. ( H/t to Blazing Cat Fur on these links. )

Hmm...the plot thickens, and the question arises: at what point do personal attacks transcend free speech ( which needs no police involvement ) and turn into outright harrassment ( which is, of course, a police matter )?

I happen to be a rather radical free-speecher - so my threshold is pretty high. And not having taken the time to properly do my research and look through the material posted on Seismic Shock's blog, I can't really say anything authoritatively as to whether this situation is right or wrong. But I do think that, in this matter, police involvement is a bad thing either way.

It's either bad because it's a form of government intervention that ought not to exist.

Or it's bad because the UK courts have gotten to the point where a man has to turn to the police in order to handle libel complaints.

A sign of an unhealthy process, no matter which you might choose.

My latest for Defend Geert Wilders

Here it is: The Weekly Wilders Round-Up, for January 25th, 2010.

My latest for AgoraVox

Check it out: The media shuffle.

My latest for the Libertas Post blog.

Would you like some police with your intimidation?

Meanwhile, at Defend Geert Wilders: The real question of the Wilders trial.

Prorogue, prorogue

I've written before about this, our latest prorogue. Maybe this latest commentary is coming on to the scene a little late - now that things have been taking to the streets with rallies and the like, I suppose the news can be designated as officially old hat.

Perhaps it's the conservative in me; I still think the prorogue needs some examination.

In my previous writings about the prorogue, no matter how much I might condemn the political maneuvering behind the decision, I was relatively undecided about the issue itself. I certainly still feel, as I did then, that the various cries of 'undemocratic' and the various comparisons to tyranny are not only unfounded, but actually insulting to nations with genuine Statist problems.

Was the move undemocratic? No. But at the same time, it does not rest easy. It smacks too much of avoiding certain issues - whether the Afghan detainee scandal, or the debate over unredacted documents, or whatehaveyou - and too much of gaming the system to be comfortably supported.

And so, over the course of reading about this issue, and thinking about this issue, I think I've pin-pointed the problem, or at least, the focus of this problem: antidemocratic the prorogue wasn't, but it was anti-Parliamentary. The move showed a rather callous disregard for the Parliament, and the motions which would die, with rather a whimper, at the last sitting's demise.

The move was perfectly legal, and it was perfectly constitutional, and the GG certainly did sign off on it. And that's fair enough - although one could argue that just because it is constitutional, that's not good enough reason for a prorogue ( one could also argue that the prorogue was meant to help Harper gain control of the Senate - or clean it up, depending on your view of things - but this argument doesn't really explain the reason for the sheer length of the prorogue ).

But it wasn't in the best interests of Parliament.

This, of course, seems to have been a long-standing tradition among leaders in this country. Whether it's prorogues, prematurely-ended committees, or just down-right partisan bickering in the House of Commons, the entire process has reached a point of de-legitimization such that Parliament has lost much of its value these days. It certainly doesn't cut a respectable figure.

Now of course, it isn't all bad. There are some redeeming qualities. And if Parliament is a gong show, it's really just been a gradual growth in the rate of gong over the years which has seen to our current situation ( I would recommend reading this report - follow the link - on the state of Parliament, as it's quite interesting ). Stephen Harper isn't really the bad guy here; he's just following a long-standing tradition of growing disregard for a growingly-irrelevant process.

However, before you accuse me of getting my partisan on, let me say this: the prorogation of Parliament was not the end of the world. It was not the end of Canadian democracy as we know it, and it was just another in a long line of de-legitimizations of Parliament. But that does not mean that it was the right move to make. Arguably, in order to discontinue the increasingly harsh and meaningless rhetoric over certain issues - particularly the Afghan detainee scandal - and to evade partisan posturing, especially during the Olympic period, the move could be justified as an attempt to preserve a little bit of Parliamentary dignity ( or however you might want to spin it ). But if the Tory party really had an ideology, if it really had, well, balls, it would, ideally, have said enough's enough. And it would have made a step toward the re-legitimization of Parliament.

Sad to say - and this may be for partisan reasons on my part - but the NDP have beaten the Tories to the punch on that one, with their proposal to have all prorogues Okay-ed by Parliament before presenting a suggestion to prorogue to the Governor General. Some interesting thoughts have been put forward regarding this proposed bit of legislation - both pro and con - and while I think such an interesting, and possibly noble, idea holds promise, I don't see any guarantee that it wouldn't end up being hijacked by partisan interests and incorporated into the Parliamentary gong show. But reform is needed, and as a symbolic step at least, I think this proposal has merit. And I think it's exactly what the Conservatives should have done - they should have set the trend instead of following it, and made at least a symbolic approach toward making Parliament better-run.

But...they didn't. And now we have to live with it. It's not the end of the world, but it's kind of disappointing. Not that many Tory supporters haven't been disappointed in the past, and won't be in the future. I will be looking with interest at what Stephen Harper does with the Senate - if he seems to be honestly trying to reform the process, then maybe there's room for hope after all; if he just fills it with rubber-stampers, then what's the point?

In the end, as a Tory supporter, I'll just have to have faith for now. But if the Conservatives don't deliver...what a sad, bitter little man I'll be then.

Ezra Levant needs your help...again

Ezra Levant's peculiar talent seems to be his unfailing ability to get people angry at him. It's a skill, really - and one I admire in a way, although I don't envy it.

At any rate, another lawsuit seems to have cropped up. I'll let Ezra speak for himself:

Khurrum Awan of the anti-Semitic Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) has finally filed his nuisance lawsuit against me, as he threatened to do last summer. You can see it here.
Awan's jihad: lawfare
Awan is the shakedown artist who targeted Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine with three human rights complaints in 2008, for Steyn's political offence of criticizing radical Islam. Awan lost those suits, and his demand to censor Maclean's was rejected, but he still managed to waste a lot of Maclean’s money – and even more taxpayers’ money, too.
That’s Awan’s strategy: abuse our courts to bully his opponents. It’s a shocking thing for a lawyer to admit to, but Awan isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. As he told an anti-Semitic meeting in British Columbia a while back, he was proud to have “cost Maclean’s two million dollars in legal expenses and lost circulation.” Awan’s friend, the notorious anti-Semite Greg Felton, approvingly quotes Awan saying “we attained out strategic objective—to increase the cost of publishing anti-Islamic material”.
So it’s not about justice. It’s not about “human rights”. It’s about abusing our legal system to punish his enemies.
Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine were first. And now I’m next in line.

[...]

Can you help me, please?
As I mentioned, this lawsuit will probably cost me $50,000 to fight. And it’s just one of many suits and complaints that the same cabal has hit me with, again and again.
Over the past two years I’ve been hit with three human rights complaints, over twenty complaints to the law society and this is the fifth defamation suit. That's 28 suits and complaints. And they’re all junk lawsuits – SLAPP suits designed to shut me up.
I won the three human rights cases, and the first twenty law society complaints have all been dismissed. So far I have a perfect track record: 23 out of 23. Unfortunately, even if you win these sorts of nuisance complaints, you don’t get your legal costs back, so it’s been expensive.
If you’d like to help me, I’d appreciate it. It's expensive fighting two dozen legal fights, even if they are junk. I think that a "normal" person would try to get out of a lawsuit like this – make a settlement, withdraw from the public square, and don't criticize radical Islam or censorship anymore. But I don’t want to submit like that – I want to use this lawsuit to expose the truth about Awan and the CIC. And I certainly don’t want this suit to change what I say or do in my life, especially my ability to criticize radical Islam and its politically correct allies.
If you believe in fighting back against these bullies, please help me out. You can chip in by PayPal, by clicking on the button below. If you’d prefer to send in a cheque by snail mail, that’s great. Please make cheques payable to my lawyer:

“Christopher Ashby in Trust”

Attn: Ezra Levant defence fund

Suite 1013, 8 King Street East

Toronto, Ontario, M5C 1B5

Thank you very much. I promise to fight this battle all the way to the end.

You can read the rest of Ezra's post here.

I would personally love to see Khurram Awan's connection with the CIC dissected in court. I think that could be both enlightening and entertaining, and I can't believe that Awan has been so foolish as to think that anything less will ever happen. I mean, seriously: what does Khurram Awan think will come of this? Surely no benefit to his reputation will occur; as a SLAPP suit it's not going to be particularly effective; and in the end, he's potentially brought a whole slew of legal hassles into his life. Not to mention that, if things go really badly, Khurram Awan could become somewhat of a pariah in legal circles, which would make all those years at Osgoode Hall rather a waste of time.

Anyway. If you'd like to donate to Ezra's legal defense fund via PayPal, click here.

Change is in the air

Dear reader,

As of now, I am going to try and make an actual effort, not to blog more, but to blog less.

This is not because I do not enjoy blogging - in fact, I enjoy it too much. I am a natural-born procrastinator. Some people chew their nails, other people go into the mean streets and start fights with hobos in a drunken rage, and I blog.

This wouldn't be a bad thing, if it weren't for the fact that I have other things that I should probably be doing instead: course-work to finally finish off school; writing that I can actually try to get published elsewhere and sell; the list of things goes on. And you know what? I'm dragging my feet on all of them.

Not that this is my blog's fault. Nor yours. But I figure that it can't hurt to down-size a little.

I've already taken a few steps in that regard. A blog to which I contributed - Heartless and Brainless - was shut down after I consulted with the original organizers and we reached the decision that it was time to move on from that project. I've closed down my Twitter account, just today. And in the immediate future, it looks like a couple of my other blogging projects are going to be changed in a big way. So, why not include this one in the mix?

I'm not taking a hiatus. I'm not going to stop blogging entirely. But, per day, I'm going to make an effort to blog a little less, and inundate my readers with fewer posts on topics ranging from, well, free speech to libertarianism to daily politics.

At the same time, I'm going to try to change the format of my postings a little bit: I'm going to try and have longer posts, maybe once or twice a day, with occasional short posts and quick links thrown in whenever they happen to come up. It might not be a huge difference from what I'm doing now, but I'm hoping that it might help me to focus a little more on other things.

I know - what do you care? But I just thought that I would include you in my process, and perhaps clue y'all in a little on why, quite possibly, my posting might drop down a little.

Stay awesome,

-Walker

Here we go

From The Hook:

Former sex-trade worker takes on Canada's sex laws

By Dharm Makwana

A retired prostitute launched an appeal of a B.C. Supreme Court decision that denied her constitutional challenge because she is not active in the sex trade and no active worker would join her.

Judge William Ehrcke ruled in December 2008 that plaintiff Sheri Kiselbach had no direct standing to launch a challenge to existing prostitution laws because she isn't facing criminal charges and her past convictions are not relevant.

“I feel I have the right, even though I'm out of sex work, to be an expert on this issue,” Kiselbach said Thursday outside the B.C. Court of Appeal.

“My experiences in sex work are still as valid today as they are for other sex workers who are working right now.”

Kiselbach's attorney Katrina Pacey with Pivot Legal LLP argues it's unreasonable to ask active sex workers to come forward because the sex industry is relatively underground and criminalized.

“Today what the court is going to hear is why various sex workers cannot come forward as individuals and why the representatives before the court are really appropriate for representing sex workers interests and their goals,” Pacey said.

“What the case is actually about in the long-term is the way that criminal laws that relate to adult prostitution violate the safety, and the liberty and the equality of sex trade workers.”

The B.C. Court of Appeal will hear from Kiselbach Thursday and Friday.

Read it here.

I realize that in conservative circles, advocating for the legalization of prostitution is not exactly priority number one - in fact, it's a down-right frowned-upon position to take amongst some of a conservative bent.

That being said - I hope that Sheri Kiselbach is able to take this as far as possible. The legalization of prostitution ( well - the legalization of solicitation, at least; and lessening of current restrictions upon the practice ) is a freedom issue. It's not a 'sex'-y ( get it? ) one, but it's something that deserves our attention nonetheless.

WHO becomes the next to tell us all what we can eat and drink

One merely has to visit the Devil's Kitchen every so often to see the ludicrousness of the anti-alchohol/smoking/whathaveyou position - it's nanny-statism and alarmism all mixed together in one lethal legal package.

At any rate, the WHO's jumped on the band-wagon.

Another Olympics round-up

Here are a few Olympics-related news stories that have caught my eye recently, in no particular order:

The Tyee - Don't Dare Use Students as Scabs during Olympics: CUPE

CBC News - Whistler lenders move to foreclose

Chris Shaw, for the Vancouver Observer - Our Time to Shine?

The Hook - ‘Miniscule’ chance Whistler won’t host Games: VANOC

Laila Yuile - You heard it here locally first, on January 11th…now,CBC picks up NY post story and tells more of how Intrawest’s troubles are threatening the Olympics in Whistler

The Hook - Out-of-town cops won’t patrol streets during 2010 Games

An interesting idea

Found this via Pundits' Guide:

Viewing it as a possible tool to reverse the dropping turnout levels amongst young voters, Elections Canada has been studying the issues around introducing Internet voting ("I-voting") in Canadian federal elections.At an all-day panel discussion slated for next Tuesday in Carleton University's Senate Chambers, speakers from Markham, Halifax and Peterborough in Canada, and California, Italy, Estonia, Switzerland, Sweden and the UK overseas, will discuss their experiences and the associated technical issues with implementing voting over the Internet. The event is co-sponsored by the Canada-Europe Transatlantic Dialogue group at Ottawa's Carleton University. Space is limited, so reserve your spot early.

Read it here.

This is an interesting idea, and if it could be harnassed properly, and kept from being abused/hacked into/geared toward certain outcomes ( no easy guarantees there, I'd say ) I think there's definitely something there.

But the main reason I bring this up is because I was reminded of an episode of the now-defunct Dilbert cartoon, which happens to deal with the topic of an 'Internet Voting Network'.

Part one:

Support for Olympics on the decline in B.C.: Poll

By Doug Ward, via the Victoria Times Colonist:

VANCOUVER — Support for the 2010 Olympics is more tepid in British Columbia than elsewhere in Canada — and the province's ambivalence about the Games appears to be growing rather than declining, according to an online poll.

The Angus Reid Public Opinion survey found that 50 per cent of British Columbians believe the Winter Olympics will have a mostly positive impact on the province compared to 73 per cent of all Canadians who think B.C. will benefit. A similar poll by Angus Reid in November found that 57 per cent of B.C. residents expected that the Olympics would be a boon to the province.

"The most striking thing in the poll is that as the Olympics get closer, British Columbians are less likely to see the Games as having a positive impact on B.C. and Vancouver," said Hamish Marshall, research director for Angus Reid. "Conventional wisdom was that as we got closer to the Olympics, people here would get more excited and more supportive."

Read the rest here.

I realize that this waning support is not a good or encouraging thing for the many deserving athletes involved in the Games. But all the same, that little man inside my head can't help himself from cackling and wringing his hands.

Take that, Province of Ontario!

Or, as an alternative headline: suck it. From the Globe and Mail:

Ontario dairy farmer Michael Schmidt has been found not guilty of a stream of charges relating to a controversial raw-milk operation he runs.

In a judgment that ran nearly three hours, a Newmarket Justice of the Peace said the cow-sharing operation Mr. Schmidt runs out of his farm near Durham, Ont., does not violate the province's milk-marketing or public-health regulations.

The judgment is the culmination of a three-year legal battle that has made Mr. Schmidt a star in a growing international food-rights movement fuelled by mistrust of the industrial food system.

Today's ruling means that raw, or unpasteurized, milk produced by Mr. Schmidt's cows – heritage Canadiennes bred near the town of Durham, Ont. – can legally be distributed to the small network of consumers who have bought “cow shares” in exchange for access to the animals' unprocessed milk.

Although it is not illegal to consume raw milk in Canada, selling or distributing violates laws that require pasteurization of most commercial milk products.

The Schmidt case, which began when his farm was raided in 2006, has captivated food-rights academics and advocates in Canada, and around the world, who argue the court's decision will ripple well beyond the raw-milk community. At its crux, they argue, the case is really about the extent to which consumers should be free to buy foods, however rarefied, and whether constitutional rights stretch as far as the grocery basket, farmer's market and the people who own shares in – but do not live on – food-producing farms.

Read the rest here.

Wow - for once, the NDP actually asks for something I agree with

Maybe this is what it feels like to be bipartisan - what a strange feeling it is, too...

“Today I am announcing that the New Democrats will bring proposals for legislation to limit the power of prorogation so the Prime Minister cannot abuse it. The government should only prorogue Parliament on a vote in the House of Commons. This will inform the Governor General of the will of the majority, so that prorogation happens when it is needed – not simply when the Prime Minister feels like it.”

More from The Hook, and Jeff Jadras in the Post.

This is a rather interesting idea, I must say. There might be some constitutional issues of course - personally I'm more in favor of a sort of 'Parliamentary General' being appointed as an extension of the GG's power, rather than directly questioning said power through legislation; but hey, whatever works. The road to Parliamentary reform is going to be a long one - this might be a step in the right direction.

Having your cake and eating it too

Ezra Levant seems to have helped B'nai Brith establish the, apparently, true nature of one Syed Soharwardy. Which is all well and good. Only thing is, it leads to press releases like this one:

TORONTO, January 15, 2010 – In light of the media’s relative inaction over the publication in a Canadian Islamic community newspaper of an article accusing Jews of killing children in order to harvest their organs, B’nai Brith Canada is questioning the “media chill” it has witnessed when it comes to antisemitism and anti-Western sentiment emanating from within the Islamic community.

“A horrific blood libel against the Jewish people was published right here in Canada and most of the national print and electronic media have been silent,” said Frank Dimant, Executive Vice President of B’nai Brith Canada. “We are concerned by the fact that such hatred has been met with almost complete silence by the media. We can only assume journalists fear being labeled ‘Islamophobes.’

“Major media outlets undertook the time and effort to interview us when the story broke about Al-Ameen publishing that despicable story, but we later learned that those stories were pulled. We are certain that if such hatred was being disseminated by other religious or ethnic outlets, there would have been outcry in Canada.

“We have all witnessed a ‘legal chill’ in previous years where there were frivolous attempts through our human rights system to muzzle and sanction Maclean’s magazine, the Western Standard and Ezra Levant, and even B’nai Brith for purportedly ‘crossing a line.’ Even though those attempts were unsuccessful, the lasting effect of having to spend such time and resources defending against frivolous complaints has created a chill within our society against speaking out against radical Islam and its manifestations. We are disturbed to see this ‘chill’ expanding into the media, a pillar of society whose freedom to report on issues of concern must be protected.”

-30-

Give me a moment, will you? I have to bite down really hard on something.

Seriously, though, doesn't B'nai Brith understand? Can they possibly be that thick? You can't support organizations like Canada's HRCs without expanding a 'chill' in the media. That's what happens when the organizations you're supporting are corrupt, and feel no compunctions about censoring publications left and right before dropping them off by the wayside like a used hooker.

Or, to put it in very simple terms, so that B'nai Brith might - possibly - be able to understand: this problem is partly your fault, you dumb-f**ks. And an apology is in order before you turn right around and start condemning everybody else but yourself for creating a 'chill' in Canadian media.

Amen, Dave Zirin

Dave Zirin on the Olympics:

“I mean if there could be a way we could de-link this idea of an international festival of sports with the IOC, and let the IOC become an absolute relic of history, that would be something that I would support very happily,” he said.

Professor Robert Martin on Canadian colleges

This comes from that Free Speech Symposium that I attended a couple of months ago. I didn't shoot this video, but I thought it was worth posting:



H/t to Vlad.

Help wanted

From Binks:

Condolences…

.. To my baby brother & sister-in law on the total loss of their apartment & personal belongings to fire yesterday. Both were at work, and watched the fire on the TV news as it happened, as the main fire hose pumped through his living room window.

Anybody who wants to make a donation to help them out can do so via PayPal. Cheques? Contact me — binks dot webelf at gmail dot com for the address. Messages of sympathy may be left below.

Thank God they are both safe.. stuff can be replaced, even if heirlooms and some pictures can’t be.

Binks

Read the rest here. There's a paypal button included in the original post after the jump, if you'd like to donate a few dollars to help these folks out.

Because I do other things too - my latest for Defend Geert Wilders

Here it is: The Trial of Geert Wilders: A Symposium

The Wildrose Alliance turns two

From my inbox:

Happy Birthday Wildrose Alliance!

January 19, 2010

Congratulations to all members!

It’s remarkable that only two short years ago today, several hundred people met in a hotel ballroom to form the Wildrose Alliance Party.

Look how far we’ve come! Look how big we’ve grown! And we’re still just getting started.

I know I speak for all in extending sincere gratitude to those first few who had the foresight to see what Alberta needed, and to everyone who has worked hard to make our party the contender it is today.

Let’s keep working together to give Albertans the new political option so many now want.

Happy birthday, everyone!

- Danielle

From the Free Thinking Film Society: 'U.N. Me' premier

Got this in my inbox:

The Free Thinking Film Society is proud to Present "U.N. Me",
January 25, 2010 at 7 PM at the National Archives/Library of Canada (395 Wellington).

Admission: $12.00

OTTAWA - The Free Thinking Film Society is proud to present the Canadian premier of the documentary, "U.N. Me", a film about how the UN has become a clubhouse of dictators, thugs, and tyrants. Producer Ami Horowitz will also be in attendance to answer all questions after the movie. And, after the Q&A, please join us for a reception at the Archives.

About the Film

When the United Nations was founded more than sixty years ago, it embodied our hope for a safer, more peaceful world. But as reports of human rights violations and international conflicts make daily headlines, a question arises: Is the United Nations living up to its founding ideals?

The answer is a resounding no.

In a film that exposes the incompetence and corruption at the heart of the United Nations, filmmakers Ami Horowitz and Matthew Groff show how an organization created to ennoble mankind now actually enables evil and sows global chaos. U.N. Me takes us on a harrowing and darkly humorous tour of the U.N.'s scandalous disregard for the people and principles it was founded to defend. Along the way we learn:

How a U.N. peacekeeping force stationed in Cote d'Ivoire fired into a crowd of unarmed protesters, injuring and killing dozens, and how the U.N. failed to investigate.

How the largest U.N. humanitarian effort ever conceived, the Oil for Food Program, devolved into one of the biggest scams in the history of the world, and how the U.N. never disciplined or fired the culprits.

How the organization that ought to be leading the international effort to eradicate terrorism cannot, seven years after 9/11, agree on a definition of "terrorism."

How the U.N.'s Human Rights Council prolonged the genocide in Darfur by attempting to discredit the urgent recommendations of its own investigative team.

Balancing these stories against exclusive interviews with former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, former CIA Director James Woolsey, former U.N. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, Nobel laureate Jody Williams, and others, U.N. Me delivers an unforgettable account of how the world's foremost humanitarian organization has become the clubhouse of dictators, thugs, and tyrants.

**************
The Free Thinking Film Society was established in 2007 in Ottawa to provide an outlet for filmmakers and moviegoers alike who are looking for an alternative to the 'alternative'. In other words, we celebrate the efforts of rfreisk-taking documentarians whose work espouses the values of limited, democratic government, free market economies, equality of opportunity rather than equality of result, and the dignity of the individual, all underscored by a healthy and patriotic respect for Western culture and traditions. To date, The Free Thinking Film Society has shown 11 films and hosted author Bruce Bawer for a speech and discussion in September, 2009.

For more information on the film, please visit http://www.unmemovie.com/ and for more information on the Free Thinking Film Society, please go to www.freethinkingfilms.com , or join our Facebook group.

- 30 -

A new documentary about Marc Emery

Full disclosure: I find Marc Emery annoying. I think he's been dealt a raw hand by both our government and the American government, and I support his cause - drug legalization - but I just find the man a bit hard to take.

I don't think I'm alone in this. I can remember hearing one interview with him ( on the now-defunct Al and Mike show - great listen ) where one of the hosts was almost in shock after Marc Emery had gotten off the line. He just has that effect on people; it's probably because of this personality trait that he's found himself fighting the government time and again.

All that being said, I haven't had a chance to watch the first part of this latest two-part documentary on Marc Emery, which was released on midnight yesterday:

Just after midnight tonight, Ontario lawyer Paul McKeever will release Part 1 of "The Principle of Pot", his new two-part documentary about the nature and motives of Marc Emery, the media-dubbed Prince of Pot. Part 1 runs 1 hour and 39 minutes. Part 2 will be released at a later date.

The launch is timed to precede a decision by Canada's federal justice minister, Rob Nicholson, about whether or not to approve the extradition of Emery to the United States, where he faces years of imprisonment for having sold cannabis seeds, in Vancouver, Canada, via mail order. The Minister's decision is expected within the next 81 days.

Emery's opponents, and the U.S. authorities who demanded his arrest in Halifax, have attempted to portray Emery as a profit-motivated drug dealer. Part 1 of McKeever's documentary will cover the period up to 1990; a period during which Emery was equally active as an advocate of individual freedom, but whose advocacy of individual freedom did not include campaigns concerning the issue of cannabis prohibition.

So, here's the first portion of the first part of that documentary, thanks to the fine fellows over at the Shotgun Blog:



Here are parts two, three, and four respectively.

Feeds the Rich, Buries the Poor

By Jim O'Quinn, via TheBurningPlatform.com:

What we've got here is failure to communicate.Some men you just can't reach...So, you get what we had here last week,Which is the way he wants it !Well, he gets it !N' I don't like it any more than you men.

Luke Jackson, as portrayed by Paul Newman, in Cool Hand Luke is a classic American character. He is a rogue who marches to the beat of his own drummer. His stubbornness, indefatigable spirit, and nonconformity are a symbol of the timeless American spirit. His character is reminiscent of Winston Smith in Orwell’s 1984, Steve McQueen’s Virgil Hilts character in The Great Escape, and Jack Nicholson’s Randall McMurphy character in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Captain, played by Strother Martin, makes it his mission to beat the nonconformity out of Luke. No matter how bad he is beaten, he comes back for more. His indomitable fortitude and independent attitude inspires the other prisoners. He escapes from the prison twice and is caught and brought back. Captain thinks that he has finally broken his will as the other prisoners see him beg for mercy, but Luke escapes one final time and is shot dead. In death Luke regained all the adulation he lost among the prisoners and became a mythic hero.

Read the rest here.

Because I do other things too - my latest for Defend Geert Wilders

Alright, here it is: The Weekly Wilders Round-Up, for Jan. 18th, 2010. Check it out.

Binks does it again

Binks of Free Canuckistan fame does it again, with Steynist 404st. Check it out.

Meanwhile, readers may note Binks' continuing bigotry toward dog-kind over feline-kind.

Google v. China continued

An interesting development arises. Via ABC News:

Google suspects traitor in China cyber attack

Google is reportedly investigating whether one or more employees may have helped facilitate a cyber attack that the US internet giant said it was a victim of in mid-December.

The search engine said last week it was thinking of pulling out of China after reporting it had been hit by a "sophisticated" cyber attack on its network that resulted in theft of its intellectual property.

Two sources who are familiar with the situation told Reuters the attack, which targeted people who have access to specific parts of Google networks, may have been facilitated by people working in Google China's office.

"We're not commenting on rumour and speculation. This is an ongoing investigation and we simply cannot comment on the details," a Google spokeswoman said.

Read the rest here. ( H/t )

Meanwhile, Jonah Goldberg comments at The Corner:

I'm on the same page as the Editors and Kathryn on what's going on in China with Google. But I must say I've been surprised at how little I've seen on the op-ed pages tying this controversy to the larger argument over globalization. (Of course, I may have missed a lot of stuff). But it seems to me that this friction between China and Google is precisely the sort of thing supporters of globalization should be touting. China wants foreign firms, commerce, and interconnectivity, but only on their terms. It seems that's impossible, so the regime is forced to make concessions to reality. Obviously, those concessions aren't nearly as good as many of us would like. But the need to belong to the increasingly interconnected world is forcing China to confront and adapt to pressures it would otherwise ignore. That's why, in a perverse sense, North Korea's regime has been "smart." The only way to stay in power is remain a Hermit Kingdom.

Read the rest here. Kathryn Jean Lopez writes on the issue here:

Washington has been abuzz about a book with the title “Game Change,” in which two political reporters provide all kinds of hot details about the last presidential campaign. But a life-saving “game changer” may actually have presented itself online, on the book’s publication date. That’s the hope of New Jersey Republican congressman Christopher Smith, a longtime human-rights crusader who has been trying to bring attention to the plight of the prisoners in the Laogai, labor camps run by the tyrants in China. And the “game changer,” he says, is Google’s discovery that the e-mail accounts of dissidents in China on Gmail have been hacked by the Chinese government, putting the lives of some courageous people in peril.

Google, which has been in China since 2005, willingly censors its search engine — in compliance with Chinese law — and refuses to talk about what exactly it censors. But if you try Googling “Tiananmen Square” from an Internet café in Beijing, you will find picturesque images. If you Google “torture,” you will learn about the Japanese during World War II and, naturally, George W. Bush and Guantanamo Bay. Smith tried all this when he was in China shortly before the Beijing Olympics. The typical Chinese with some curiosity, who is not satisfied with the propaganda that the government is producing, is going to happen upon the same. Searches for democracy, human rights, or Tibet leave the curious Google searcher in China lacking a lot of important information. Meanwhile, the government will know what he searched for.

Read the rest of that here.

Finally, on a related note, Mike Brock effectively debunks the 'Googlegate' conspiracy.

Why it's better to pretend you don't know anything about computers

This is very good advice. H/t to MooseandSquirrel.ca.

And speaking of the media

Senator Jerry Grafstein, Beryl Wajsman, and Raymond Heard are hoping to buy up the Montreal Gazette, National Post, and Ottawa Citizen. I wish them luck in that endeavor.

Meanwhile, the New York Times is thinking of becoming the latest publication to hide their content behind a subscription fire-wall. As Jay Currie predicts, if the Times continues down that particular avenue, their online presence is going to be non-existent pretty soon; they're not offering anything particularly worth subscribing for, as many other online-subscription publications actually do.

Seriously,does Andrew Breitbart ever sleep?

Introducing: Big Journalism.

Audit nightmare

By Kevin Gaudet, via Enter Stage Right:

Imagine the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) shows up at your door to do an audit. As if that alone isn't scary enough, they proceed to take both copies of your documents, originals and photocopies -- without your permission. They lose or destroy these key originals. Then they assess hefty tax bills against you because you cannot provide documents in your defense. CRA mistakenly demands you pay $800,000 in taxes allegedly owed. This helps ruin your business, leaving you broke. Does this sound far-fetched? Not according to British Columbia's Mr. Irvin Leroux, who has lost everything fighting for 14 years against such bully tactics by the CRA.

His treatment outraged his MP, the long-serving Dick Harris, who took up his cause with the former Minister of National Revenue. According to Mr. Leroux, his MP was told by the Minister that the CRA couldn't pro-actively compensate Mr. Leroux for his loss, but that he could sue the government and they would offer a settlement.

As ridiculous as it is that Mr. Leroux has been forced to sue the Canadian government to get back some or all of what he has lost in his lengthy tax fight fiasco, not a nickel has been offered. In this case it appears the federal government made a mistake; a big one at that. They should just admit it, apologize for it, and settle out of court with Mr. Leroux. Instead, they are playing the Goliath against his David, fighting him in court and denying any wrong-doing on their part.

The latest tactic employed by government lawyers, scheduled for court at the end of this January, has been to argue that Leroux's lawsuit has no merit as his tax case was resolved earlier.

The issue of taxes owing was resolved by a judge only after Leroux fought in tax court to prove he owed no money. The case was settled in 2005 with the CRA agreeing that he had actually overpaid his taxes. They were required to pay him a small refund.

The CRA's attitude seems to be 'oh well, this issue is over.' But it isn't over for Mr. Leroux who is struggling to pick up the pieces after CRA's withering 14 year campaign against him.

Read the rest here.

Because I do other things too - my latest for Defend Geert Wilders

Here it is: Shrugging off Spinoza.

Jack Knox: We don't need Pepsi to tell us how to cheer for Canada

By Jack Knox, via the Victoria Times Colonist:

'O Canada," I sang.

"Stop that," said Vanoc, handing me a cease-and-desist order.

Jeez, these Olympic guys are going a little over the top, eh? (That is, if my use of "eh" isn't an infringement of some sweeping licensing agreement encompassing any and all words Canadian.)

We all know how zealous the 2010 Games organizers are about protecting the Olympic brand. Only official (that is, paying) sponsors may exploit terms such as "Olympic" or "2010" or display the inukshuk logo. Vanoc had the Olympic Peninsula bulldozed for using the word without permission. Olympia Dukakis was shot.

But now, it seems, our very patriotism has become an Olympic property.

Vanoc is upset about a Scotiabank promotional campaign called Show Your Colours in which members of the public are urged to upload photos of "the people, places and things that make them proud to be Canadian."

Scotiabank doesn't mention the Games, doesn't even hint at the O word. Still, the timing, plus the use of two-time Olympian Cassie Campbell at the campaign's Vancouver launch, has Vanoc bleating about ambush marketing.

So, does this mean only official sponsors -- such as Scotiabank rival RBC -- may cheer Canada on to victory? Vanoc is demanding that Show Your Colours be shelved until after the Games.

To which I say, shelve it for good. Shelve them all, for that matter. We've had enough attempts to hijack national pride as a corporate marketing tool. The maple leaf shouldn't come with a trademark symbol attached.

Read the rest here.

Because I do other things too - my latest for Defend Geert Wilders

Here it is: Dutch Embassy statement on Geert Wilders case.

Human rights case could change the face of the industry

By John Q. Duffy, via Taxinews.com:

Ontario’s Human Rights Commission is going to hold a hearing into the Toronto Ambassador taxicab program early in the New Year.
Mediation efforts by the HRC over the past summer, which included a proposed settlement proposed by the commission, failed.
A hearing into whether or not the program is essentially racist will start on January 25, 2010.
Oral testimony before the Human Rights Tribunal is expected to take five days, and another two days are scheduled for submissions from both lawyers for the complainant and the City of Toronto, says Peter Rosenthal, the lawyer acting for the complainant.
He then said he expects the single adjudicator presiding over the case to take some time rendering a decision, and he does not expect to see a judgment before April.
According to the Hearing Brief submitted by Rosenthal, dated September 1, 2009, to the HRC and the City on behalf of Ambassador plate holder Asafo Addai, “The Complainant alleges that the City’s provision of second-class licenses to him and the other holders of Ambassador Licenses is discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin.”

Read the rest here.

H/t

And speaking of the Olympics

It's those pesky protesters again. Via The Hook:

Protesters, terrorists potential Olympic threats, US warns

By Geoff Dembicki

Local protesters are named alongside al-Qaeda as the biggest security threats to the 2010 Olympics in a U.S. government travel advisory.
“Domestic protest groups, supporting various political causes, may attempt to disrupt the Olympics through demonstration or other activities,” reads a fact sheet for Americans travelling to Vancouver’s Winter Games.
“While Canadian security services are highly skilled at protecting large events and controlling demonstrations, even peaceful events can turn violent, and Americans are therefore advised to avoid any areas of public protest.”
The advisory was prepared by the U.S. Department of State and likely posted sometime in the past six weeks, the Globe and Mail reported.
It warns Americans that groups such as al-Qaeda could strike at any time, though no specific 2010 threats have been identified.
“In the post-September 11th world, the threat from international terrorist groups at major public events is always a principal concern,” it reads.
With heightened security at venues, targets of attack could range anywhere from restaurants to churches, the document warns.
Some observers argue terrorists are unlikely to target the 2010 Games, when a major attack in any big city would attract world-wide media attention.
Last July, Olympic security boss Bud Mercer told Vancouver city council violent protests are possible.
“Locally, provincially, nationally and internationally,” Mercer said, “there are groups which are considering and planning to engage in criminal protesting during the 2010 Games.”

Geoff Dembicki reports for the Tyee.

Read it here.

Now, where have I heard this before, about Olympics protesters? Oh yes - our dear friend Mr. Harry Bloy.

Meanwhile, Vaughn Palmer pens another read-worthy column: Torch preparations prompt bipartisan backslapping.

Well this is kind of cool

The Internet strikes again! Via CTV:

Citizen journalists given home base for 2010 Games

By Heron Hanuman

Citizen journalists hoping to cover the Vancouver 2010 Winter Games will now have a media centre to work from. For the first time in the Olympics history, non-accredited journalists, bloggers, and cell phone videographers will have a home base -- at the W2 2010 Media House in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside neighbourhood.

The century old heritage building has 10,000 square feet of space which will allow journalists to edit and upload stories to the internet, and rub shoulders with other newsmakers from around the world.

Official broadcasters, like CTV and NBC, will be located at the International Broadcast Centre at Vancouver's new Convention Centre. The B.C. government has created a second media centre at Robson Square for broadcast and print journalists who couldn't find space at the IBC.

Most bloggers and citizen journalists won't have appropriate media credentials to cover official Olympic venues, said Irwin Oostindie, executive director of the centre. He told CTV News the intent of W2 2010 Media House is to ride the wave of new storytelling tools that social media offers while allowing different voices to be heard regardless if they are pro or anti-Olympic.

"As a piece of infrastructure, as a provider of physical space and bandwidth, we believe that citizens have the right to tell those stories, it's up to those individuals to be responsible for managing what is appropriate," he said.

[...]

The current media market place is split with a much more fragmented audience said Alfred Hermida, assistant professor of journalism at the University of British Columbia. He told CTV News more voices will only serve to provide more information to the audience but controlling the content is going to be a big deal for the International Organizing Committee and official broadcasters.

"It used to be clear who was a journalist and who isn't a journalist but potentially the thousands of people watching the men's hockey final with their smart phones are potentially all journalists," Hermida said.

"If they all start taking pictures uploading the media, technically they are committing an act of journalism and they are breaking the rules."

In the Beijing Summer Games, the IOC fined one blogger for posting images from inside official venues on the social photo sharing site Flickr. Hermida believes the IOC will have their hands full trying to police the thousands of visitors armed with web-enabled smart phones.

I would personally love to see the IOC trying to 'police' citizen journalists and bloggers.

In fact, effective immediately, if anybody snaps a picture of the Olympics proceedings that they want to see up on the Internet, feel free to send it on to me ( see the email at my blog's sidebar ) and I will be happy to publish it. Not because I necessarily care about the Olympics, ( although I dig citizen journalism ), but just to piss off the IOC, VANOC, etc.

'No you can't: you're JDL.'

Yes, that is correct. The Jewish Defense League has. Agents. Everywhere:

I took a few photos, hoping to capture the different signs and the candles. I chatted with a freelance reporter whom I've seen at other events.

Then a woman approached and stood uncomfortably close to me. I didn't record any of what happened next so the dialogue is reproduced to the best of my ability. At this time, I was standing several feet away from the protesters.

Woman: "Excuse me, there are a number of us who meet here every Friday and we have some rules. We want to know the names of the people who are photographing us and what you're going to use the photos for."

Me: "This is a public place. You are making a public display. I can take photos."

Woman: "No, you can't: you're JDL."

Me: "I am not in the JDL."

Woman: "Whatever."

When I addressed her by her first name, she demanded to know my name.

Woman: "Where did you get my name? Am I on the shit list?"

Me: "The what list?"

Woman: "The JDL has a shit list with everyone's name on it. I'm probably on it."

Me: "What?"

Woman: "The JDL, the Zionists have a list with Richard Gere with a penis."

Me: "With a what?"

Woman: "A picture of Richard Gere with a penis beside him."

Me: "Where have you seen this list? I haven't seen this list."

Woman: "Google it."

[...]

A cop asked to speak to me away from the group and I refused. He told me I was breaching the peace and had to leave. He said I could voluntarily remove myself to a specified distance from the protest: either about 25-30 metres to the right or left or across the street. If I did not go voluntarily, police officers would escort me away. If I refused, I would be arrested.

Here's where I got stuck. I'm sure the cops would say I was stuck on stupid but I would say that I was stuck on my old concept of the law pertaining to actions rather than feelings and on clearly defined Canadian rights and freedoms.

My conversation with the police went something like this.

Yes, I interrupted them repeatedly. Yes, I know that's not the way to have a constructive dialogue. At no time did I swear or scream or threaten anyone. I mostly kept saying, "But I haven't done anything wrong."

After I asked to speak to someone else because he was being rude to me, one cop's face was quivering with anger; he said no, he was in charge, and he told me to "shut your mouth and stop talking" so he could finish what he was saying. I was in shock: here I was, the rule-follower, being threatened with arrest, when I hadn't broken any rules.

I'm paraphrasing again. I'm also combining the two cops because they pretty much repeated the same things and it doesn't matter which one said what.

Cop: "...Breaching the peace..."

Me: "But I haven't done anything wrong."

(Repeat, repeat, repeat.)

Cop: "Your presence here is upsetting to some people..."

Me: "So my presence is upsetting someone and that's against the law?"

Cop: "Yes. It's called Breaching the Peace... You are welcome to stand over there or across the street..."

(Repeat.)

Me: "I'll stand off the sidewalk, there, on the street." (The area between the protest and the police.)

Cop: "No, you will not... Officers so-and-so, take this woman across the street..."

Me: "It's against the law for me to stand here?"

Cop: "Yes."

(Repeat.)

Cop: "Your presence here might be a catalyst for something bad to happen. Catalyst, that's a big word."

Me: "I know what catalyst means."

Cop: "No, I was making fun of myself, for knowing such a big word."

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that out there, somewhere, exists a picture of Richard Gere standing next to a giant penis.

So how are those Olympics working out for you so far?

ED NOTE: I'll be honest - I'm kind of using this post as a dumping ground for a small collection of Olympics-related links. Enjoy, or don't. I'm still gonna post them.

As people realize, slowly, the higher and higher cost ( in more than financial ways ) of running the Olympic Games, as you can imagine, support has waned. From Kady O'Malley at Inside Politics:

P&P Viewer Question Poll: Are we spending the right amount of taxpayer money on the Olympics?

Well, that depends who you ask, according to the results of an EKOS poll provided exclusively to CBC TV's Power and Politics. EKOS reports that "a slim plurality of Canadians say that too much is being spent on the Winter Olympic games to be held in Vancouver next month, although almost as many say that "just the right amount is being spent ... Just seven per cent say that too little is being spent."

Here's how the numbers break down, in response to the following question:

"Based on what you know, do you think that too much, too little, or just the right amount of taxpayer money is being spent on the 2010 Vancouver Olympics?"

48% too much
45% right amount
7% too little

The regional breakdowns suggest that British Columbians are more likely to think we're spending too much -- 68 percent, compared to just 28.2 percent who say we're spending the right amount, and a scant 3.8 percent who think we're spending too little. Residents of Quebec, meanwhile. are least likely to so -- 42.5 percent say "too much," compared to 49.4 for "too little."

Looking at the numbers by party support, New Democrats, Undecideds and Others are markedly more likely to think too many taxpayer dollars are flowing to the upcoming Games -- 58.2, 65.8 and 56.2 percent, respectively Only 43.7 percent of Liberals and Conservatives agree -- down to the decimal point, in fact, with 50.8 and 50.9 percent who think spending is "just right".

Is it any wonder? Adrian MacNair points out several ( more ) examples of the way in which VANOC and the Olympics have essentially walked in and taken over the Province of British Columbia for the foreseeable future.

And not that, for all of this, the Olympics planning is still getting bad reviews:

One of Vancouver’s leading architecture critics has given the urban vision of 2010 Games planners a staunch thumbs down.
"Opinions of Olympic cities are shaped more by the accomplishments of local architects than homegrown athletes," Trevor Boddy wrote in the latest issue of Vancouver Review. "Ours will be the least architecturally ambitious Olympic Games since Melbourne in 1956."

But to be fair, VANOC is doing some good:

VANOC representatives were among the officials who opened a newly renovated Covenant House shelter for homeless youth yesterday.
The shelter and resource centre, at 326 W. Pender St., already provides shelter, food, clothing and counseling for 1,900 youth each year.
Thirty-two transitional housing beds and support services for homeless and at-risk youth have been added to the facility thanks to funding from the provincial and federal government (to the tune of $ 1.65 million) and $ 250,000 from VANOC, as part of their Olympic Legacies program.

And at any rate, they led Alex G. Tsakumis to promote this wicked souvenir in a fit of justifiable rage:

Look for your Official Commemorative Gordon Campbell/VANOC 2010 Souvenir, coming to your mailbox soon!

Or order any additional souvenirs with RUSH delivery today by calling 1-800-Got-Gord

Please enjoy!

So, umm...yeah. Can't be all bad.

Because I do other things too - my latest for Defend Geert Wilders

Here it is: Pilin' it on - more 'hate speech' charges laid against Geert Wilders.

Meanwhile: Geert Wilders’ trial is coming soon (January 20, 2010). Last step to support him with a SITA action.

It's nice to see he doesn't hold a grudge

Winston Blackmore, the leader of those creepy Mormons in Bountiful, is suing the government of BC:

The leader of a controversial polygamous community in B.C. is suing the provincial government for violating his rights when authorities charged him with polygamy last year.

Winston Blackmore, who has admitted to having multiple marriages, and James Oler were arrested in January 2009 and each charged with violating the country's ban on polygamy.

Their arrest came despite previous opinions by special prosecutors that such charges might not withstand a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Blackmore's lawyers accused the provincial government of "special prosecutor shopping," and last September a judge threw out the charges.

Blackmore has filed a lawsuit in B.C. Supreme Court accusing the attorney general of negligence and violating the principles of fundamental justice because he appointed another special prosecutor to review the case.

The statement of claim, which hasn't been tested in court, seeks damages because the charges caused Blackmore mental distress and public embarrassment.

You know, it's funny. I'm not sure who I want to win here. On the one hand, it's the creepy Mormon dude from Bountiful. On the other, it's the government that tried to prosecute him by any means necessary.

This will be interesting to watch.

A fond farewell to Heartless and Brainless

And thus ends an age:

Well, it's been great, you've been fun, and we've had a lot of laughs.

But seriously folks, get out.

I was in on the ground floor of Heartless and Brainless, way back in July of '08. Over twelve-hundred posts later, this blog's various and sundry contributors, collected from several corners of the world ( although mainly centering around McGill University ) have all gone their separate ways.

Well, except me. But there's not much point in having a multiple-contributor blog when there's only one contributor. And so, after consulting with Guancous and Byron, the decision has been made to let Heartless and Brainless die a slow, painless death. It will not be deleted. Every post - lovingly crafted - will remain archived for you, the dear reader, to peruse.

But no more content will be added. Comments will be shut down, and this site will be locked by yours truly after I leave this final post.

It's been real fun. We've had a blast entertaining, and - presumably - informing y'all over the past couple of years. Hopefully we'll see you around sometime - you can buy us lunch.

Cheers.

The whole Google in China thing

Jay Currie, like, I am sure, many others, is happy to see Google seemingly stand up for freedom of speech in China.

I'm not so sure. Don't get me wrong - I think it's great to see a company like Google move in the direction of free speech. That's awesome. That's fantastic.

But what worries me is that, if Google's negotiations with China go south - or perhaps even more south - the people of China will not have Google at all. Surely even a limited access to such a freeing agent is better than no access. And even a limited access to such an agent as Google at least provided a fleeting opportunity for an incremental injection of Western, anti-communist, anti-statist values. If Google pulls out altogether, one more opportunity for, well, freedom propaganda really, has gone as well.

And so I'm not sure we should be celebrating just yet.

More at Vlad Tepes and The Corner.

Because I do other things too - my latest for Defend Geert Wilders

Here it is: Calling on all Dutch Embassies to free Geert Wilders:

Dear readers,
This is a list of all of the Dutch embassies and consulates in Canada – or, if you dig for a little bit, around the world.
Now, as many of you are undoubtedly aware, the Dutch politician Geert Wilders is going to be going on trial for ‘hate speech’ this January, on the 20th. His crime? Words, writings, a film. Defaming a religion; offending the wrong people, in the wrong country.
Some people might think that a man going on trial for his words is fitting in a modern, Western nation. Others, who may perhaps harbor more respect for the Western tradition of liberalism and freedom of speech, might find this idea abhorrent and repellent and repugnant.
If you are one of those who, like myself, find this idea – that a man can go on trial for his words – repugnant, then may I suggest that you email, or phone, or fax, or write the Dutch consulate nearest you, and say just that. Tell them that the Dutch government, which for so long was a bastion of free speech and liberalism, must return to that tradition, and free Geert Wilders from this political farce, this trial for spoken words and strongly-held opinions.
Thank you,
Walker Morrow, for defendgeertwilders.wordpress.com

More on Irish blasphemy laws

Check out Vlad Tepes for a little more on Ireland's disgusting blasphemy laws.

Gordon Campbell's secret plot to smuggle private health care into our fair province

I realize the problems inherent in Gordon Campbell's plan, here - particularly placing the needs of paying Saskatchewan customers over, presumably, his own people - but I'm still rather underwhelmed by the implications:

A two-page proposal included in the documents says B.C. would offer hip and knee joint replacement surgeries to people from Saskatchewan, but a price would need to be worked out between the provinces. “This [operating room] program, utilizing identified Lower Mainland sites and staffing (including nursing, administration and surgeons) would be set up specifically for these out-of-province cases at sites where unused capacity exists.”

If there was unused capacity in B.C. it was only because the province had been cutting the number of surgeries it was willing to fund for British Columbians who were waiting for treatment, said Dix.

He believes the plan, which was met with public concern in both Saskatchewan and B.C., will never be implemented. "These were on the face of it nutty ideas that were likely illegal," he said.

A spokesperson for the B.C. health ministry said charging other jurisdictions more than it costs to provide the surgery would allow B.C. to provide more services to British Columbians. Negotiations with Saskatchewan have not advanced past the preliminary discussions, he said.

What do you, dear reader, think?