...not gonna happen.
[UPDATE: But wait, what have we here? ]
Wednesday, 31 March, 2010
Dear senators: what good are you?
I realize that, like many of my fellow free-speechers, I should probably be rejoicing in the recent enquiry into free speech that was called by Senator Doug Finley on the Senate floor a day or two ago.
Blazing Cat Fur has been all over it, with transcripts of free-speechy comments by Senators Doug Finley, Pamela Wallin, Mike Duffy, and David Tkachuk. Small Dead Animals has provided some coverage here and here, too, as has Mark Steyn in his blog, Kady O'Malley at Inside Politics, and Truepeers at Covenant Zone.
The end result, as David Akin reports for Canwest, via the Times Colonist:
Ezra Levant seems pretty happy over on his blog.
Now, I will be the first to admit that I haven't read through all of the remarks and debate, but here's my insta-analysis: this is amateur-hour stuff. These senators are talking about Ann Coulter and George Galloway ( didn't come up - but seriously: I think there should be somebody with a stick following Olivia Chow around to jab her in the kidneys whenever she makes a comparison between the two ), with a few skin-deep analyses of Section 13(1) and provincial matters like the Guy Earle trial currently under-way ( which they can't do anything about anyway ).
And while this is all well and good - and I will admit that it's nice to see politicians get concerned about the issue of free speech in this country - it doesn't get us anywhere at all. It looks good, but it's useless. It's a symbolic victory for the Speechers only. Seems to be about the only kind we're going to get for a while.
I mean, come on. I know that there's a problem with free speech in this country. A small army of bloggers, writers, podcasters, etc. knows that there's a problem with free speech in this country. Even people from outside this country know that there's a problem with free speech in this country. You'll have to forgive me if I'm rather impatient while our political class is still taking the time to catch up to the rest of us.
Take what you can, and take heart, Speechies. But we're in this for the long-haul. Pressure for legislative reform - Senate enquiries and speeches are fun and all, but they don't get us jack.
Blazing Cat Fur has been all over it, with transcripts of free-speechy comments by Senators Doug Finley, Pamela Wallin, Mike Duffy, and David Tkachuk. Small Dead Animals has provided some coverage here and here, too, as has Mark Steyn in his blog, Kady O'Malley at Inside Politics, and Truepeers at Covenant Zone.
The end result, as David Akin reports for Canwest, via the Times Colonist:
OTTAWA — Senator Doug Finley led a call Tuesday to scrap a section of Canada's Human Rights Act that he and other Conservative senators say is being used to stifle free speech in Canada.Also available in the Montreal Gazette. An official Hansard transcript of the speeches and debate can be found here.
Ezra Levant seems pretty happy over on his blog.
Now, I will be the first to admit that I haven't read through all of the remarks and debate, but here's my insta-analysis: this is amateur-hour stuff. These senators are talking about Ann Coulter and George Galloway ( didn't come up - but seriously: I think there should be somebody with a stick following Olivia Chow around to jab her in the kidneys whenever she makes a comparison between the two ), with a few skin-deep analyses of Section 13(1) and provincial matters like the Guy Earle trial currently under-way ( which they can't do anything about anyway ).
And while this is all well and good - and I will admit that it's nice to see politicians get concerned about the issue of free speech in this country - it doesn't get us anywhere at all. It looks good, but it's useless. It's a symbolic victory for the Speechers only. Seems to be about the only kind we're going to get for a while.
I mean, come on. I know that there's a problem with free speech in this country. A small army of bloggers, writers, podcasters, etc. knows that there's a problem with free speech in this country. Even people from outside this country know that there's a problem with free speech in this country. You'll have to forgive me if I'm rather impatient while our political class is still taking the time to catch up to the rest of us.
Take what you can, and take heart, Speechies. But we're in this for the long-haul. Pressure for legislative reform - Senate enquiries and speeches are fun and all, but they don't get us jack.
Guy Earle on trial - the story continues...some more
Just a quick post with a few updates.
First off, a little more coverage of the trial from The Lynch Mob, and here's the story, including video, from Global TV on the first day of the trial.
Meanwhile, via Bulletproofcourier at The Guy Earle Trial, we learn that:
Read it here. And while you're at it, scroll through the rest of the site for news and updates.
Finally, Truepeers at Covenant Zone continues his coverage of the trial - here are instalments five, six and seven.
First off, a little more coverage of the trial from The Lynch Mob, and here's the story, including video, from Global TV on the first day of the trial.
Meanwhile, via Bulletproofcourier at The Guy Earle Trial, we learn that:
The trial has ended a day early. Closing arguments are scheduled for Friday April 9 at 2pm. Stay tuned here for ongoing updates, I still have some great stuff to post: testimony from the last witness, a complete video tour of the BCHRT facilities (including religious art on the walls), photographs of Hearing Room #4, and my reflections about taking part in this truly Canadian experience.
Read it here. And while you're at it, scroll through the rest of the site for news and updates.
Finally, Truepeers at Covenant Zone continues his coverage of the trial - here are instalments five, six and seven.
Hidden fees! Hidden fees!
Well, for engineers. Via Vaughn Palmer's blog:
Read all about it here.LIberal MLA Ralph Sultan has spoken out against his own government over what he called a "via-the-backdoor" fee increase for professional engineers.
Sultan, himself a registered professional engineer, spoke against the measure and urged his colleagues on the government side to do the same.
But the Liberals ignored the advice from the West Vancouver MLA and passed the measure.[...]
"In the grand scheme of big issues which occupy this legislature, you might conclude that this is a small thing," he addressed his colleagues. "Well I beg to differ. The guiding executive are seeking to strip from the general membership the power to approve their own fees because the association tried twice before to raise annual fees and twice had their proposal voted down by the membership."
Well, who needs transparency anyway?
Via Sean Holman at Public Eye Online:
British Columbia Lottery Corp. wants to keep its cards even closer to its chest. The Crown corporation is recommending dramatic legal changes that would make it even more difficult for British Columbians to find out its secrets. Under the province's existing freedom of information legislation, BCLC can refuse to release information that could result that would result in "undue financial loss or gain" for a third party. But the corporation, in a submission to the committee reviewing that legislation, argues there "should be a broader acceptance of its records having potential commercial value" because it operates in a business environment where competitors in other jurisdiction may not be subject to freedom of information requests. As a result, it wants to be able to refuse to release information could result in "any financial loss or gain" for a third partyRead the rest here.
Free speech, etc.
Just a few notes on speech-related matters floating around out there.
First, I see that the Board of Internal Economy has approved the measure of banning ten per center mail-outs by Members of Parliament into ridings which aren't their own. Good. A little less partisan rhetoric in this country can't be a bad thing. And arguments that this will somehow infringe on MPs' rights to express themselves fall flat, as I laid out a little while ago in the Libertas Post.
Second, it seems that the right of Westboro nut Fred Phelps to be a complete asshole have been upheld by the US Court of Appeals, which has asked that the little sh*t's appeal costs be paid by the grieving father - Albert Snyder - who originally brought Phelps to court for picketing his soldier son's funeral. I don't see why the Court of Appeals has to do this now, as opposed to after the Supreme Court has weighed in on the matter, but the libertarian in me can't help but be encouraged that even someone as slimy and reprehensible as Fred Phelps is recieving such consideration from the courts in regard to such a contentious issue.
Still though, if you want to help Mr. Snyder with his legal bills, feel free to chip a few bucks his way here.
Third and finally, it looks like Darren Lund is going to be appealing the Alberta Court of Queen Bench decision, which over-turned the Alberta Human Rights Commission decision in his favor in Lund v. Boissoin. I don't understand why Lund is doing this - you'd think that a real court of law deeming some of the punitive measures in the Lund v. Boissoin decision to be outright illegal would have put a stop to this farce.
But, it seems, old habits die hard, and Darren Lund wants to prove his point. What a drama queen.
First, I see that the Board of Internal Economy has approved the measure of banning ten per center mail-outs by Members of Parliament into ridings which aren't their own. Good. A little less partisan rhetoric in this country can't be a bad thing. And arguments that this will somehow infringe on MPs' rights to express themselves fall flat, as I laid out a little while ago in the Libertas Post.
Second, it seems that the right of Westboro nut Fred Phelps to be a complete asshole have been upheld by the US Court of Appeals, which has asked that the little sh*t's appeal costs be paid by the grieving father - Albert Snyder - who originally brought Phelps to court for picketing his soldier son's funeral. I don't see why the Court of Appeals has to do this now, as opposed to after the Supreme Court has weighed in on the matter, but the libertarian in me can't help but be encouraged that even someone as slimy and reprehensible as Fred Phelps is recieving such consideration from the courts in regard to such a contentious issue.
Still though, if you want to help Mr. Snyder with his legal bills, feel free to chip a few bucks his way here.
Third and finally, it looks like Darren Lund is going to be appealing the Alberta Court of Queen Bench decision, which over-turned the Alberta Human Rights Commission decision in his favor in Lund v. Boissoin. I don't understand why Lund is doing this - you'd think that a real court of law deeming some of the punitive measures in the Lund v. Boissoin decision to be outright illegal would have put a stop to this farce.
But, it seems, old habits die hard, and Darren Lund wants to prove his point. What a drama queen.
The HST...
...not done yet.
The Victoria Times Colonist: Bitter fight expected over HST; Impact of the harmonized sales tax; and NDP pledges all-out battle to block HST in B.C.
The Hook: BC finance minister Hansen introduces bill to prepare for HST.
Vaugh Palmer, in his blog: Ranks of canvassers continue to grow.; and in his Sun column: NDP signals it will fight HST every step of the way.
Les Leyne, for the Colonist: HST will inflict dire wounds on premier.
The Victoria Times Colonist: Bitter fight expected over HST; Impact of the harmonized sales tax; and NDP pledges all-out battle to block HST in B.C.
The Hook: BC finance minister Hansen introduces bill to prepare for HST.
Vaugh Palmer, in his blog: Ranks of canvassers continue to grow.; and in his Sun column: NDP signals it will fight HST every step of the way.
Les Leyne, for the Colonist: HST will inflict dire wounds on premier.
Guy Earle on trial - the story continues
[UPDATE: More as the trial progresses from Truepeers at Covenant Zone, Bulletproofcourier at The Guy Earle Trial, and Blazing Cat Fur. ]
My apologies, dear reader, for not following the Guy Earle trial more closely. Things have been kind of busy on my end.
Fortunately for us, other more capable bloggers have been doing this job for me.
Blazing Cat Fur provides general coverage here, here, here, and here, and so does Scary Fundamentalist at The Lynch Mob here, and here, who also comments here. Jay Currie comments here. Meanwhile, Mark Steyn notes the inclusion of the Guy Earle case in a Senate inquiry of all things, and Marni Soupcoff in the Post writes on the importance of mockery.
Hugh MacIntyre briefly covers the case, in his blog and the Post, with more coverage from bmobmo, Ezra Levant, and MooseandSquirrel.ca. Mainstream coverage from the National Post, Vancouver Province, Vancouver Sun, Victoria Times Colonist, and CKNW ( starting at about the 37-minute mark ).
Meanwhile, The Guy Earle Trial blog provides excellent coverage of the case. Just go scroll through the whole blog to read it all. But here's some video provided by the blog's author, Bulletproofcourier, of Guy Earle's lawyer, Jim Millar, explaining his reasons for walking out of the proceedings:
Finally, Truepeers at Covenant Zone provides some must-read coverage of the trial - parts three and four.
My apologies, dear reader, for not following the Guy Earle trial more closely. Things have been kind of busy on my end.
Fortunately for us, other more capable bloggers have been doing this job for me.
Blazing Cat Fur provides general coverage here, here, here, and here, and so does Scary Fundamentalist at The Lynch Mob here, and here, who also comments here. Jay Currie comments here. Meanwhile, Mark Steyn notes the inclusion of the Guy Earle case in a Senate inquiry of all things, and Marni Soupcoff in the Post writes on the importance of mockery.
Hugh MacIntyre briefly covers the case, in his blog and the Post, with more coverage from bmobmo, Ezra Levant, and MooseandSquirrel.ca. Mainstream coverage from the National Post, Vancouver Province, Vancouver Sun, Victoria Times Colonist, and CKNW ( starting at about the 37-minute mark ).
Meanwhile, The Guy Earle Trial blog provides excellent coverage of the case. Just go scroll through the whole blog to read it all. But here's some video provided by the blog's author, Bulletproofcourier, of Guy Earle's lawyer, Jim Millar, explaining his reasons for walking out of the proceedings:
Finally, Truepeers at Covenant Zone provides some must-read coverage of the trial - parts three and four.
Tuesday, 30 March, 2010
Not to worry
With respect to the thorny issue of abortion, Mr. Harper should embrace the standard medical position championed by the World Health Organization, the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health, and indeed previous Liberal and Conservative governments. This position is to support women’s access to safe abortions in those countries where it is legal. Many members of the Conservative government may have their own personal opposition to abortion, and this must be respected. However, they do not have the right to force their views on others when it runs counter to the prevailing scientific consensus…
That's Liberal MP Keith Martin, writing in The Mark. H/t to Aaron Wherry.
Now, this is all well and good, although you may disagree with Keith Martin's analysis. But what has to be kept in mind is that Stephen Harper has made absolutely no bones about the fact that he is not interested in tackling the abortion issue.
Paul Wells explains, albeit in relation to a slightly-older issue.
Oh good: let's hold an inquiry
In fairness to Senators Finley and Duffy, I appreciate the sentiment behind holding an inquiry into the state of freedom of speech in Canada.
But the cynical part of my brain wants to know: how long before they lose interest and this inquiry goes down the memory-hole, too?
But the cynical part of my brain wants to know: how long before they lose interest and this inquiry goes down the memory-hole, too?
Monday, 29 March, 2010
Pro-active voter apathy. I like that strategy.
Tasha Kheiriddin, writing for the Post in the wake of the Tories' announcement that yes, indeed, political party subsidies are going to be an election issue:
But - and I really hate to sound disillusioned, here, although I am - haven't we heard this before? What do you want to bet that, even if the Tories win the next election ( which is fairly likely, I'd say, from my arm-chair ) political instability will be the reason why they never follow through once they're in office?
Anyone want to lay odds? No?
Well, it was a nice idea, anyway. I appreciate the effort. But I think Tasha's idea has some merit - let's institutionalize our apathy for political purposes. Heck, why stop with an advocacy group? Let's go for a full-blown-out party: it could be called the CRAPP Party. I'd love to write their non-campaign literature.
[UPDATE: Thanks to The Nexus of Assholery for the link! ]
Of course, if the Conservatives fail to get a majority, this promise will be impossible to keep, as other parties will want to keep riding that public gravy train. And while this pledge may be a vote getter, it’s hard to see it as the defining issue of a campaign, with so many other things on the table.Don't get me wrong. I'm jazzed and all that the Tories want to make this a part of their campaign. Nothing would make me happier than for the country to add this particular debate to the focus of the national political debate. Not to mention the other reforms of Canada's elections-spending laws that could be on the table afterward - I mean seriously, wouldn't that be awesome?
So here’s a radical thought: instead of relying on the Tories to do it, voters could defund the parties ourselves. If none of us voted, the parties wouldn’t get any public money. Interested citizens could form an advocacy group: Canadians Really Against Political Pogey (CRAPP) and run an anti-get-out-the-vote campaign. Slogan: Just stay home, and stop giving politicians your money. They spend enough of it anyway, once elected.
But - and I really hate to sound disillusioned, here, although I am - haven't we heard this before? What do you want to bet that, even if the Tories win the next election ( which is fairly likely, I'd say, from my arm-chair ) political instability will be the reason why they never follow through once they're in office?
Anyone want to lay odds? No?
Well, it was a nice idea, anyway. I appreciate the effort. But I think Tasha's idea has some merit - let's institutionalize our apathy for political purposes. Heck, why stop with an advocacy group? Let's go for a full-blown-out party: it could be called the CRAPP Party. I'd love to write their non-campaign literature.
[UPDATE: Thanks to The Nexus of Assholery for the link! ]
Oh, and by the way
I suppose, given my recent denunciation of Stephen Harper as a Liberal-lite shill for spending, it would be unfair for me not to mention this story, by Paul Vieira in the Financial Post:
You'll have to forgive me if I don't jump up and down with joy. I mean, it's great that as a nation we may be in less debt than previously thought. But we're still in the red, and even this brief ray of sunshine has not come as a result of some great uprising in conservative spending policies - rather it seems more a stroke of good fortune, in spite of 'conservative' spending policies.
Which begs the question: what good are these people, then?
OTTAWA -- In further proof that the Canadian economy has roared back to life, the Department of Finance said Friday it nearly hit a balanced budget in January based on the first monthly increase in tax revenue in over a year.Read the rest here.
The $265-million shortfall in January is by far the smallest so far this 2009-10 fiscal year, ending March 31. The latest issue of the Fiscal Monitor lends to credence to arguments from some economists that the federal deficit might shrink faster than the Department of Finance indicated in its budget earlier this month.
According to Finance, Ottawa recorded a budget shortfall of $265-million, compared with a small $118-million surplus in the same year-ago month. This fiscal year, monthly deficits have tended to range in the $3-billion to $5-billion range.
With two months left to report for the 2009-10 fiscal year, the federal government has a budget deficit of $39.6-billion, whereas Finance envisaged a $53.8-billion shortfall for the entire fiscal year. Should the momentum continue, it is possible the federal deficit for this fiscal year could be quite a bit smaller than projected in the budget.
You'll have to forgive me if I don't jump up and down with joy. I mean, it's great that as a nation we may be in less debt than previously thought. But we're still in the red, and even this brief ray of sunshine has not come as a result of some great uprising in conservative spending policies - rather it seems more a stroke of good fortune, in spite of 'conservative' spending policies.
Which begs the question: what good are these people, then?
The Guy Earle trial - it's here, folks
All month we've been building up to this moment. Well, now that it's here, I have to say it's been a disappointment so far: in this it's lived up to my expectations.
First, let's hear from Guy Earle himself in the days preceding his hearing before the BC HRT, starting today.
More coverage of the trial from Metro News, Small Dead Animals, Five Feet of Fury, and Mark Steyn, with running commentary from Blazing Cat Fur. Meanwhile, Bulletproofcourier is set to live-blog when he can at The Guy Earle Trial.
Finally, Truepeers at Covenant Zone writes a rather lengthy post on the subject that is far too reasonable and intelligent for someone like me to fully appreciate on this little an amount of sleep. Just go read it for yourself.
I'll update as I can.
[UPDATE: Five Feet of Fury is on the ball ( thanks for the link, by the way), as is Blazing Cat Fur. Bulletproofcourier at The Guy Earle Trial provides us with an update. Adrian MacNair at Unambig Ambidext and Truepeers at Covenant Zone provide on-the-ground reports. ]
First, let's hear from Guy Earle himself in the days preceding his hearing before the BC HRT, starting today.
More coverage of the trial from Metro News, Small Dead Animals, Five Feet of Fury, and Mark Steyn, with running commentary from Blazing Cat Fur. Meanwhile, Bulletproofcourier is set to live-blog when he can at The Guy Earle Trial.
Finally, Truepeers at Covenant Zone writes a rather lengthy post on the subject that is far too reasonable and intelligent for someone like me to fully appreciate on this little an amount of sleep. Just go read it for yourself.
I'll update as I can.
[UPDATE: Five Feet of Fury is on the ball ( thanks for the link, by the way), as is Blazing Cat Fur. Bulletproofcourier at The Guy Earle Trial provides us with an update. Adrian MacNair at Unambig Ambidext and Truepeers at Covenant Zone provide on-the-ground reports. ]
Sunday, 28 March, 2010
The Month of Earle - part eighteen
Alas, I don't think that I will be able to make it to the Guy Earle trial, starting tomorrow in Vancouver. I had hoped to, but life is just too busy for me right now, although I'll do my best to cover updates as they come in.
And so will this fellow. Blazing Cat Fur has the story:
Meanwhile, and h/t again to Blazing Cat Fur, via CTV News: Comedian hopes for last laugh in human rights complaint.
And so will this fellow. Blazing Cat Fur has the story:
Bulletproofcourier will be live blogging the Guy Earle BCHRT hearing and has set up a dedicated web site "The Guy Earle Trial" - sounds like a good o'l hurtin song in the makin. I'll ask Scaramouche for one her inspirational efforts."The trial takes place on March 29, 2010 at 605 Robson street in Vancouver BC Canada. The public is welcome to attend. " I suspect we will hear from other local bloggers attending.Read the rest here.
Meanwhile, and h/t again to Blazing Cat Fur, via CTV News: Comedian hopes for last laugh in human rights complaint.
Signs of life
Maybe there's hope to be had in the land after all. Via the Colonist:
I'll believe it when I see it...
OTTAWA — The government is expected to reintroduce Senate reform for the fourth time on Monday.Read it here.
The legislation aimed at limiting the number of years a Senator could serve was defeated first by a Liberal-dominated Senate.
It later died when an election was called and again most recently because of prorogation.
The Tories are hopeful the fourth time will be a charm as recent Conservative appointments to the upper chamber have tipped the scale 51-49 in their favour.
I'll believe it when I see it...
Saturday, 27 March, 2010
[Reposted] Saying goodbye to Stephen Harper
Yesterday I mentioned a Fraser Institute report which showed that the effects of the Canadian government's stimulus program actually had very little impact on the recent growth of our economy - despite Tory claims to the contrary.
In that post, I wondered whether Stephen Harper would be making an apology to the libertarians and fiscal conservatives that he threw under the bus with his surrender to Keynesian spending measures.
Well, this is apparently our answer. From CBC News:
That's it, Stephen. I'm done. I can't take this any more. I have gone from doubtful but supportive, to very doubtful and unhappy, to critical and very unhappy, and now I am absolutely disgusted.
This is no longer a small-c conservative government. This cannot be debated any longer. The day when a supposed Tory Prime Minister is defending large amounts of - largely ineffectual - government spending, he isn't a Tory any longer, I'm sorry. There is no turning back, at this point. Stephen Harper has basically told fiscal conservatives that they aren't worth his time. Why should he be worth ours?
Or, as Gerry Nicholls writes in his blog:
On the local level, I still support my local Conservatives, and in what capacity I can I will continue to try and serve the best interests of conservatism in this country.
But I can no longer support the Conservative Party of Canada. The leadership of Stephen Harper saw to that.
*Crossposted to the Libertas Post blog.
[UPDATE: I see that The Iceman is currently decrying the naivete of libertarians: like, we should totally just grow up and give up and accept that every pathetic bone we're being thrown is all we're going to get.
Gawd, that's depressing. I'll stick with my principles, thanks. ]
[UPDATE II: Lorne Gunter in the Post mourns the passing of the old Jim Flaherty - the one who would have actually agreed with the Fraser Institute's analysis, rather than attacking it. ]
[UPDATE III: I thought I'd repost this once or twice over the next few days, just to piss people off. ]
In that post, I wondered whether Stephen Harper would be making an apology to the libertarians and fiscal conservatives that he threw under the bus with his surrender to Keynesian spending measures.
Well, this is apparently our answer. From CBC News:
Read it here.Prime Minister Stephen Harper shot back Thursday at a report that cast doubt on Ottawa's stimulus spending, defending his government's "unprecedented" efforts to pull Canada out of a recession.
Government officials have repeatedly insisted the $47.2-billion spending splurge was necessary and directly responsible for Canada's economy emerging from recession in late 2009.
But on Tuesday, the Fraser Institute, which champions free-market economic solutions, concluded government spending and infrastructure investment accounted for just 0.2 percentage points of the 1.1 per cent growth between the second and third quarters of 2009.
The report further asserts that stimulus spending played no role at all in the one per cent improvement between the third and fourth quarter, saying an increase in net exports was the main reason for that growth.
"First of all, that’s completely wrong and quite frankly contradicted by very serious work that’s been done [elsewhere]" Harper told reporters. "Economic theory and history is clear, governments must … make sure [funds] are put to productive use in the economy to create jobs.
"That is what we have been doing, that has been successful [and] every reputable international study says so, by the way, not just for us."
Long-term, he said the private sector has to take the reins for job creation, but he rejected outright any suggestion that government actions weren't directly responsible for pulling the country out of recession.
"If we had not done this … the recession would have been a lot worse," he said, citing studies from world bodies such as the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development to back up the claim.
Authors reiterate position
The Fraser Institute stood by its analysis on Thursday, releasing a commentary responding to the government's objections in which it again insisted that stimulus spending in the last two budgets had a negligible effect on Canada's economy.
"While [the government's] comments are certainly great political rhetoric, the latest data from Statistics Canada tells a remarkably different story," the authors of the initial report, Niels Veldhuis and Charles Lammam, wrote in their response Thursday.
The Fraser report was based on sound economic data from Statistics Canada, the Institute noted in a tweet on Thursday, whereas other recent reports, such as analyses by TD Bank and the Conference Board of Canada, were based on assumptions and economic models.
The authors did give Ottawa credit for $4.5 billion in tax credits, which it said no doubt increased consumption, but had nothing good to say about the stimulus measures.
"Despite the government’s claims, the stimulus package didn't work and was a mistake that will burden Canadians with debt for years to come," they said in their commentary Thursday.
That's it, Stephen. I'm done. I can't take this any more. I have gone from doubtful but supportive, to very doubtful and unhappy, to critical and very unhappy, and now I am absolutely disgusted.
This is no longer a small-c conservative government. This cannot be debated any longer. The day when a supposed Tory Prime Minister is defending large amounts of - largely ineffectual - government spending, he isn't a Tory any longer, I'm sorry. There is no turning back, at this point. Stephen Harper has basically told fiscal conservatives that they aren't worth his time. Why should he be worth ours?
Or, as Gerry Nicholls writes in his blog:
For him to say something so absurd, has got to be the final straw for anyone still harboring illusions that the Prime Minister has one conservative fibre left in his body.There is no reason for a fiscal conservative, at this point, to think they will ever see results from Stephen Harper. And as for the social conservative wing of the party: do you honestly think that you're different from us, and that this won't happen to you too, when it becomes convenient for the Tory leadership?
On the local level, I still support my local Conservatives, and in what capacity I can I will continue to try and serve the best interests of conservatism in this country.
But I can no longer support the Conservative Party of Canada. The leadership of Stephen Harper saw to that.
*Crossposted to the Libertas Post blog.
[UPDATE: I see that The Iceman is currently decrying the naivete of libertarians: like, we should totally just grow up and give up and accept that every pathetic bone we're being thrown is all we're going to get.
Gawd, that's depressing. I'll stick with my principles, thanks. ]
[UPDATE II: Lorne Gunter in the Post mourns the passing of the old Jim Flaherty - the one who would have actually agreed with the Fraser Institute's analysis, rather than attacking it. ]
[UPDATE III: I thought I'd repost this once or twice over the next few days, just to piss people off. ]
Ah Venezuala
Venezuala: a bastion of freedom and prosperity. Via Vlad Tepes:
Venezuelan Attorney General Luisa Ortega said Guillermo Zuloaga, owner and president of the television channel Globovision, has been arrested for making remarks “offensive” to President Hugo Chavez, Fox News reported March 25. Zuloaga said he had been detained at an airport in Falcon state.More from Jay Currie, whose rather snide put-down of Sean Penn was much appreciated by yours truly.
Send the Fourniers some dough
Mark and Connie Fournier need money to fight for the online community's right to privacy - feel free to chip a few bucks their way to help make that dream a reality.
Thursday, 25 March, 2010
How interesting
Google seems to be going the incrementalist route in China. Via the Colonist:
Google Inc. said it's still providing censored search services for some partners in China, after announcing this week it would begin offering unfiltered results in the country.Read the rest here.
The company needs to fulfill "existing contractual obligations as we believe it's the responsible thing to do," Jessica Powell, a Tokyo-based spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. Google will phase out censored services for partners "over time," she said.
Google this week stopped censoring its Chinese website and shifted search services from the country onto an unfiltered Hong Kong site, an act criticized as "totally wrong" by China. The move puts in jeopardy alliances with partners including China Mobile Ltd. and Sina Corp. as a standoff with the Chinese government raises concerns about the U.S. company's future operations in the world's biggest online market.
Privacy, etc.
A few notes on privacy in Canada.
Bob Mackin, via The Hook:
Bob Mackin, via The Hook:
How much taxpayers' money was spent on the floating Olympic rings in Coal Harbour?Les Leyne, via the Victoria Times Colonist:
It's a government secret. On Dec. 11, 2009, 24 hours filed a Freedom of Information request for the contract, work order, invoice and receipt for the display on a Seaspan barge off Stanley Park.
Seventeen pages were released March 1, the day after the Olympics closed, but 10 of those pages were censored in their entirety because the B.C. 2010 Winter Games Secretariat thought disclosure would harm law enforcement, financial interests of a public body and public safety.
Example: A woman was shot five times after leaving her partner. She'd complained to police earlier about previous assaults and threats. Police got a peace bond, but didn't tell the woman her ex-partner already had a criminal record for threats and violence against a former wife.And on a related note, an unsigned editorial from the Colonist:
Why not? Because restrictions in privacy law make it difficult to release information on previous convictions.
It's one of a host of examples in the government's submission to a legislature committee that is reviewing information and privacy law, a task that is taken up every six years.
The effort usually produces some tinkering and fine-tuning on the freedom-of-information side of the legislation.
But this time around the government has mounted a comprehensive push to rewrite the privacy requirements in order to allow for streamlined, government-wide sharing of information.
The video posted to YouTube is highly disturbing. It shows a Victoria police officer kicking at a couple of people on the ground in front of a shop on Store Street just after midnight on Sunday morning.
[...]
The video gives viewers a gut-wrenching sense of what happened during a brief period of time, less than a minute, early Sunday morning. What it does not show, however, is the initial assault, the arrival of the police, or the actions of all the men being arrested.
Most importantly, the video does not let us see what the police officers were seeing. Which is one more reason why body-worn video cameras should become part of the uniform for every officer on the beat.
Body-worn cameras would benefit both the police and the public. They would provide crucial evidence that would explain what happened leading up to an arrest and help show how the arrest was made.
My latest
First, I have another article up at the Libertas Post that you should totally check out: Say "No" to Ten Percenter Mail-outs.
Meanwhile, at Defend Geert Wilders: Interesting parallels in Germany, part three.
Meanwhile, at Defend Geert Wilders: Interesting parallels in Germany, part three.
The Month of Earle - part seventeen
For this instalment of the Month of Earle series, here's Chase Roper for the Punchline Magazine Blog: Comedian faces human rights tribunal over heckler fight:
H/t to The Lynch Mob.
Back in May 2007, comedian Guy Earle introduced the next comic during the open mic at Zesty’s Restaraunt in Vancouver, Canada. A couple strolled in toward the end of the show, sat down at the front of the stage, and proceeded to heckle Earle. Offensive words were launched from both sides including targeting sexes and sexuality. After the show, Earle snapped a pair of sunglasses belonging to the drunken couple after twice having water thrown in his face by them.Read the rest here.
H/t to The Lynch Mob.
The HST...
...not done yet.
Paul Willcocks in the Victoria Times Colonist: HST report can't answer the key questions
Vaughn Palmer in his Vancouver Sun blog: Adieu PST, hello HST
Paul Willcocks in the Victoria Times Colonist: HST report can't answer the key questions
Vaughn Palmer in his Vancouver Sun blog: Adieu PST, hello HST
Postcards from the new era of fiscal constraint
As goes the federal...
So goes the provincial...
Heavily censored documents show premier Gordon Campbell and finance minister Colin Hansen likely knew more about the province's finances than they admitted during the election, said New Democratic Party finance critic Bruce Ralston.More from Vaughn Palmer in the Sun.
Wednesday, 24 March, 2010
The Month of Earle - part sixteen
In this instalment of the Month of Earle, I'd like to present a podcast from the States. It's a relatively-new podcast with Rob Long, Peter Robinson, Mark Steyn, and others, and in this episode they briefly discuss the upcoming Guy Earle trial.
Check it out.
[UPDATE: Meanwhile, Mark Steyn makes mention of the Guy Earle trial in NRO's The Corner. ]
Check it out.
[UPDATE: Meanwhile, Mark Steyn makes mention of the Guy Earle trial in NRO's The Corner. ]
Coulter in Canada
I guess my conservative boots aren't on if I don't at least comment on the Ann Coulter situation.
I realize that some of my fellow conservatives are quite angry over this incident, and rightly so, but are we absolutely sure that we're targeting the right people with our wrath?
Personally I think that Ann Coulter is a very polarizing figure - from what I've heard, she's certainly a very intense person - and I realize that it's easy to get caught up in that whirlwind. Especially here in Canada. The fact that she's got great legs doesn't hurt matters.
But in the interest of making sure that as many of my brethren don't wake up in a ditch, disoriented, confused, and missing their pants after this is all over: what, exactly, should have been done?
From what I've read, this was mainly a police decision because it looked like there was a good chance of violence if Ann Coulter did her thing at the University of Ottawa.
But should the police have let her speak? I would have preferred that they had, obviously, and I think most people reading this would have preferred that they had as well. But imagine if Ann Coulter did speak, and violence did start, and the police got involved, people got arrested, and people got hurt.
Does that sound like something that we should ask the University of Ottawa to risk? Seriously? Is that what parents send their kids to college for? To get caught up in a riot?
It was unfortunate that Ann Coulter didn't get a chance to speak her piece, and it was unfortunate that there are people who attend the U of O who thought that it would be a good idea to threaten violence and ruin things for everyone else. It truly was.
But let's calm down a bit before we go around launching hate crime complaints ( no matter how mocking ), lambasting the cops, and generally doing the sorts of things that we'll probably regret later.
After all, whatever you might think of Ann Coulter, don't you find it rather interesting that she's being presented as on the reasonable side of this particular debate?
[UPDATE: Some interesting post-even coverage from Kady O'Malley at Inside Politics. I have a feeling that my hunch about Ann Coulter may be proven correct in the end: the woman's dangerous for our collective sanity. ]
[UPDATE II: More from Ezra Levant, Kelly McParland, Terry Glavin, and oh, what the hell, John Baglow. ]
I realize that some of my fellow conservatives are quite angry over this incident, and rightly so, but are we absolutely sure that we're targeting the right people with our wrath?
Personally I think that Ann Coulter is a very polarizing figure - from what I've heard, she's certainly a very intense person - and I realize that it's easy to get caught up in that whirlwind. Especially here in Canada. The fact that she's got great legs doesn't hurt matters.
But in the interest of making sure that as many of my brethren don't wake up in a ditch, disoriented, confused, and missing their pants after this is all over: what, exactly, should have been done?
From what I've read, this was mainly a police decision because it looked like there was a good chance of violence if Ann Coulter did her thing at the University of Ottawa.
But should the police have let her speak? I would have preferred that they had, obviously, and I think most people reading this would have preferred that they had as well. But imagine if Ann Coulter did speak, and violence did start, and the police got involved, people got arrested, and people got hurt.
Does that sound like something that we should ask the University of Ottawa to risk? Seriously? Is that what parents send their kids to college for? To get caught up in a riot?
It was unfortunate that Ann Coulter didn't get a chance to speak her piece, and it was unfortunate that there are people who attend the U of O who thought that it would be a good idea to threaten violence and ruin things for everyone else. It truly was.
But let's calm down a bit before we go around launching hate crime complaints ( no matter how mocking ), lambasting the cops, and generally doing the sorts of things that we'll probably regret later.
After all, whatever you might think of Ann Coulter, don't you find it rather interesting that she's being presented as on the reasonable side of this particular debate?
[UPDATE: Some interesting post-even coverage from Kady O'Malley at Inside Politics. I have a feeling that my hunch about Ann Coulter may be proven correct in the end: the woman's dangerous for our collective sanity. ]
[UPDATE II: More from Ezra Levant, Kelly McParland, Terry Glavin, and oh, what the hell, John Baglow. ]
What's this? The fiscal conservatives were right? Booyah!
*Crossposted to the Libertas Post blog.
I realize that the Fraser Institute is not exactly a bastion of centrism, but nonetheless this is a rather damning report. It shows that the billions and billions and billions of dollars in stimulus monies that the Tories threw around has not been the main cause of Canada's growing economic recovery - although, of course, the Tories are happy to claim credit. Instead, it was things like investment, exports, all that sort of free-market jazz, that did the lion's share of the work.
This is not to say that the stimulus didn't add a little tiny bit to our economic growth - for instance, tax breaks probably helped to some degree - but it wasn't nearly enough to justify the massive deficit that this country is going to be paying off for years because of it all.
So, um...how naive were we libertarians and fiscal conservatives about the stimulus package again, Mr. Harper?
We'll accept your apology in either written or verbal form.
H/t to Andrew Coyne.
I realize that the Fraser Institute is not exactly a bastion of centrism, but nonetheless this is a rather damning report. It shows that the billions and billions and billions of dollars in stimulus monies that the Tories threw around has not been the main cause of Canada's growing economic recovery - although, of course, the Tories are happy to claim credit. Instead, it was things like investment, exports, all that sort of free-market jazz, that did the lion's share of the work.
This is not to say that the stimulus didn't add a little tiny bit to our economic growth - for instance, tax breaks probably helped to some degree - but it wasn't nearly enough to justify the massive deficit that this country is going to be paying off for years because of it all.
So, um...how naive were we libertarians and fiscal conservatives about the stimulus package again, Mr. Harper?
We'll accept your apology in either written or verbal form.
H/t to Andrew Coyne.
Oh, let them have their liquor
By Randy Shore, via the Times Colonist: No booze at lunch, ICBC tells employees:
Oh, come on. They work for ICBC - they're already dead inside. Might as well let them have this little bit, right?
The Insurance Corp. of B.C. has banned its employees from consuming alcohol during working hours, but the union representing many of ICBC's workers is defending their right to a pint with lunch.Read the rest here.
The provincial Crown corporation has issued a directive to all employees forbidding the consumption of alcohol on the job, even during unpaid meal breaks. But that's where the Canadian Office and Professional Employees Local 378 draws the line.
"We don't object to ensuring that [union] members aren't under the influence at work. We've worked with ICBC and other employers on vigilance around alcohol in the past," COPE 378 spokesman Mike Bruce said. "It's a concern that the policy intrudes on employees' private time."
Because unionized employees do not get paid for their lunch breaks, COPE 378 considers that the company "should have no jurisdiction or interest" over private time.
Oh, come on. They work for ICBC - they're already dead inside. Might as well let them have this little bit, right?
Tuesday, 23 March, 2010
Uh-oh. Contradiction-watch
in the the kerfuffle over Ann Coulter's being bumped from speaking at the University of Ottawa, this line from Colby Cosh's coverage at Macleans raised a slight red flag:
[Humorless UPDATE: As has been pointed out in the comments, this is more of a glib move on Ann and Ezra's part than I had originally thought. I guess I can sort of understand that, but I'm still not convinced that it's a good idea. After all, why poke the sleeping bear, right? ]
She accuses the University of Ottawa’s academic vice-president, Francois Houle, of “inspiring hatred” toward her with his epistolary warning to her that she needed to be conscious of Canada’s criminal prohibitions of hate speech. Indeed, she says she intends, with Levant’s help, to ask police to proceed with exactly the same charges against Houle.Erm...what? Ezra, buddy, you know I love ya, but didn't you spend years of your life devoted to devaluing the very industry that would look into such charges? Even if this is a frivolous complaint to make a political point, it still employs people that ought not to be employed, looking into things they, arguably, ought not to be looking into...
[Humorless UPDATE: As has been pointed out in the comments, this is more of a glib move on Ann and Ezra's part than I had originally thought. I guess I can sort of understand that, but I'm still not convinced that it's a good idea. After all, why poke the sleeping bear, right? ]
The HST...
The analysis continues.
A reader emails:
Well, I'm not an economist, so my analysis will probably stay more on the political side of things than the economic. But I will admit that this is an interesting question to consider; a new tax just when we're coming out of a recession doesn't strike one as a good idea.
However, I have two rays of hope:
1) As Vaughn Palmer has pointed out a couple of times, between the various rebates, etc. that the Liberals are handing out to offset the impact of the Harmonized Sales Tax, the BC government is actually going to see a loss of revenue from this new tax - as Bill Tieleman noted, it'll probably be somewhere around a $113 million loss. The Liberals' gimmick of devoting 'revenue' from this new tax to healthcare, already pretty stupid in and of itself, gets even stupider when you consider this fact.
Now, my personal theory is that this has never been about harmonizing taxation - it's all been about a short-term gain in federal dollars to smooth over the transition, which the Liberals can then use to cover the cost of the deficit that they ran.
But how will this affect us? Well, I don't know. Just because the government isn't seeing revenue doesn't necessarily mean that we will, although I suppose we can live in hope.
However, this brings me to:
2) Adaptation. I know this might sound cold, but I'm a pretty firm believer in social Darwinism: I believe that we adapt to our surroundings, to our society, to our culture, and to our government. And that includes taxes.
Remember the GST? Well, that was a new tax way back when, too. Now it's a revolutionary act when somebody like Stephen Harper drops it by a couple of percentage points. In other words, we adapted to that tax.
It seems a steady facet of our interaction with the government: no matter how much we get screwed over, we forget six months later. To a libertarian like me, it's maddening to see a wave of anger over an issue that happens to bolster my side of the political arena fade after the mainstream moves on to another issue. As a culture, we seem to have the attention span of a gnat when it comes to these sorts of things.
I'm not saying this is a good thing. It's quite horrible, really. And it's one of the reasons why the BC Liberals are still in power: cumulatively, they've pulled off so many stunts and horrible things that it would probably take days to list them all. But we forgive and we forget. And we adapt.
And I think that's exactly what is going to happen with the Harmonized Sales Tax. We'll absorb the cost like we absorb every other blow that life and government throw at us. We won't be happy about it, but eventually we'll numb to the reality.
I ran across an interesting column by Vaughn Palmer today: Anti-HST army marches on without official opposition. In it he writes:
The sad thing is, he's probably right. The anti-HST movement doesn't really stand a chance of succeeding in their venture. It's a symbolic show of opposition at best ( although to be fair, sometimes it's shows of symbolic opposition which are the best kind ).
From the get-go, although opposition to this new tax has been fierce, it's had trouble getting beyond the point of being angry, and actually effecting political change. Hell, even the official opposition in BC has shown itself to be pretty inept when it comes to that sort of thing. The BC Liberals have pretty much made it clear that they intend to push this new tax through whether we want it or not. And they'll suffer the consequences for it during the next election.
But by then it will be too late. We probably won't be able to change the course of our new form of taxation for a long time: it'll be ours, and that'll be all there is to it for the next few years, until finally somebody can get around to getting rid of the damned thing.
And by then, if that time should ever come, I can almost guarantee that people will moved on. They'll have added this burden to the rest of their burdens.
I think that's the most depressing part of the HST issue. The sheer fatalism of it all.
That didn't really answer the question originally posed, I'm afraid, but that's about all I can do. Take heart: we'll get over it. Eventually. And hopefully, at some point far in the future, it'll be our turn to get someone with the sharp end of the stick. I nominate Gordon Campbell.
A reader emails:
There is a sharp rise in, homeless seniors, right now. My belief is, there will be hundreds of, more people homeless. I can't grasp, how, these people will be able to pay for all of this? Where are the logistics, in taxing citizens, who, have already lost everything they had. I am a senior, and politically challenged. What is going to happen to us? Perhaps, I am not seeing the entire picture. Can you do a blog? There are many more people, as afraid as I am.
Well, I'm not an economist, so my analysis will probably stay more on the political side of things than the economic. But I will admit that this is an interesting question to consider; a new tax just when we're coming out of a recession doesn't strike one as a good idea.
However, I have two rays of hope:
1) As Vaughn Palmer has pointed out a couple of times, between the various rebates, etc. that the Liberals are handing out to offset the impact of the Harmonized Sales Tax, the BC government is actually going to see a loss of revenue from this new tax - as Bill Tieleman noted, it'll probably be somewhere around a $113 million loss. The Liberals' gimmick of devoting 'revenue' from this new tax to healthcare, already pretty stupid in and of itself, gets even stupider when you consider this fact.
Now, my personal theory is that this has never been about harmonizing taxation - it's all been about a short-term gain in federal dollars to smooth over the transition, which the Liberals can then use to cover the cost of the deficit that they ran.
But how will this affect us? Well, I don't know. Just because the government isn't seeing revenue doesn't necessarily mean that we will, although I suppose we can live in hope.
However, this brings me to:
2) Adaptation. I know this might sound cold, but I'm a pretty firm believer in social Darwinism: I believe that we adapt to our surroundings, to our society, to our culture, and to our government. And that includes taxes.
Remember the GST? Well, that was a new tax way back when, too. Now it's a revolutionary act when somebody like Stephen Harper drops it by a couple of percentage points. In other words, we adapted to that tax.
It seems a steady facet of our interaction with the government: no matter how much we get screwed over, we forget six months later. To a libertarian like me, it's maddening to see a wave of anger over an issue that happens to bolster my side of the political arena fade after the mainstream moves on to another issue. As a culture, we seem to have the attention span of a gnat when it comes to these sorts of things.
I'm not saying this is a good thing. It's quite horrible, really. And it's one of the reasons why the BC Liberals are still in power: cumulatively, they've pulled off so many stunts and horrible things that it would probably take days to list them all. But we forgive and we forget. And we adapt.
And I think that's exactly what is going to happen with the Harmonized Sales Tax. We'll absorb the cost like we absorb every other blow that life and government throw at us. We won't be happy about it, but eventually we'll numb to the reality.
I ran across an interesting column by Vaughn Palmer today: Anti-HST army marches on without official opposition. In it he writes:
-The campaign against the harmonized sales tax claimed a victory of sorts earlier this month, when no one came forward to register as the official opponent of the petition to repeal the tax.Read the rest here.
The campaign has a well-known proponent, in the person of former premier Bill Vander Zalm. But as of the passing of the mandated-in-legislation March 8 registration deadline, he has no official counterpart on the other side of the petition campaign, an absence that did not go unnoticed by his associates at Fight HST B.C.
"Elections BC rules require that any opponents of the petition register," wrote Chris Delaney, one of the other campaign leaders, in an e-mail to regional organizers this week. "Since the date for filing as an opponent has passed, no person or group is allowed to advertise directly or indirectly their opposition to our petition or our proponent."
He noted how that did not mean people could not have "an opinion" about the HST. But in his reading, "it means if they attack our group or our efforts or positions they may be violating the act."
Therefore he urged regional organizers to help "keep tabs" on opponents, particularly representatives of "industry and government," to make sure they do not break the law.
"Please connect any news stories you read in your area and forward electronic copies to me wherever possible," Delaney asked. "Please include stories regarding Bill, our petition and/or opposition stories, letters or articles -- especially those involving the government or industry."
Actually, individuals and groups can still register as sponsors of advertising on the initiative petition. They can spend up to $5,000 apiece for or against the tax and/or the initiative to overturn it.
But without status as an official proponent, they have no access to the greater leeway to raise and spend upwards of $900,000 (the exact limit has not yet been determined) against the official campaign for the initiative.
Not to say that anyone would risk that kind of money in defence of the HST, given widespread opposition to both the tax and the postelection doublecross by the B.C. Liberals that brought it into being.
But potential opponents probably held back in the belief that the petition drive is more likely to fail on its own, than with a concerted effort to stop it.
The sad thing is, he's probably right. The anti-HST movement doesn't really stand a chance of succeeding in their venture. It's a symbolic show of opposition at best ( although to be fair, sometimes it's shows of symbolic opposition which are the best kind ).
From the get-go, although opposition to this new tax has been fierce, it's had trouble getting beyond the point of being angry, and actually effecting political change. Hell, even the official opposition in BC has shown itself to be pretty inept when it comes to that sort of thing. The BC Liberals have pretty much made it clear that they intend to push this new tax through whether we want it or not. And they'll suffer the consequences for it during the next election.
But by then it will be too late. We probably won't be able to change the course of our new form of taxation for a long time: it'll be ours, and that'll be all there is to it for the next few years, until finally somebody can get around to getting rid of the damned thing.
And by then, if that time should ever come, I can almost guarantee that people will moved on. They'll have added this burden to the rest of their burdens.
I think that's the most depressing part of the HST issue. The sheer fatalism of it all.
That didn't really answer the question originally posed, I'm afraid, but that's about all I can do. Take heart: we'll get over it. Eventually. And hopefully, at some point far in the future, it'll be our turn to get someone with the sharp end of the stick. I nominate Gordon Campbell.
Sigh...yet more from the Ministry of Children and Family Development
Via Sean Holman at Public Eye Online:
Read the rest here.
The ministry of children and family development will be trimming less money from its budget for contracted social service agencies than first anticipated. We broke the story about that cutback in February. The ministry's political boss Mary Polak subsequently told The Vancouver Sun's Jonathan Fowlie it would amount to $10 million. But that cutback has since been whittled down to $7.4 million.
Read the rest here.
Cameras, cameras everywhere
I see that Mike de Jong is continuing with his pilot project of putting cameras in provincial court-rooms.
Good on 'im.
Good on 'im.
The Wonder Years - part three
I haven't done anything with this segment for a while, I must admit, but this story has been getting a fair amount of buzz lately, so I thought I should note it.
I am, of course, talking about the trouble that Ann Coulter has been having with the University of Ottawa.
Read all about it at Strictly Right, Blazing Cat Fur, Mark Steyn, the Libertas Post, Free Dominion, and the CBC.
I am, of course, talking about the trouble that Ann Coulter has been having with the University of Ottawa.
Read all about it at Strictly Right, Blazing Cat Fur, Mark Steyn, the Libertas Post, Free Dominion, and the CBC.
The CRTC weighs in on fee-for-carriage...finally
I don't like the CRTC, I'm not a fan of big cable companies, and I wasn't crazy about the Save Local TV campaign, either. But it's still kind of nice to get closure on the fee-for-carriage issue.
More from Don Martin in the Post, and Jack Knox in the Times Colonist.
More from Don Martin in the Post, and Jack Knox in the Times Colonist.
How could this go wrong?
By Rob Shaw, via the Victoria Times Colonist: Deaths in jail will no longer trigger automatic inquests:
Well, there's certainly no potential for abuse there...
B.C. coroners are no longer required to hold a public inquest every time someone dies in police custody, under rules introduced by the provincial government yesterday.Read the rest here.
The amendments to the province's Coroners Act gives the chief coroner discretion not to hold an inquest into cases where an in-custody death appears due to natural causes, could not have been prevented or does not appear to have been connected to police care.
The decision to avoid an inquest would be made public and reported to the solicitor general, who could still order an inquest.
Under current laws, a public inquest is mandatory for every death that occurs when someone is held in cells, detained or questioned by police.
"Because we have limited time for the coroner to do inquests throughout the year, we want to make sure the coroner does in fact utilize that time as best as possible," said Solicitor General Kash Heed.
Coroners will continue to conduct normal investigations and prepare public reports on deaths involving police, said Norm Leibel, acting chief coroner.
But by avoiding lengthy inquest proceedings on cases that don't require them, coroners can focus on cases where they can make a difference, Leibel said.
Well, there's certainly no potential for abuse there...
Monday, 22 March, 2010
A 95,000 member shakedown
What gets to me is, where did this group of people find 95,000 Muslims to go along with this legal farce? Surely at least one amongst these 95,000 realizes the mockery that they're making of their own religion, right?
No gun registry, but for a reason
I agree with repealing the long-gun registry, but this article from the Victoria Times Colonist gives me a bit of pause:
Again, I agree with people such as Hoeppner that the long-gun registry has to go, but do we really have to use examples of tragedy and human suffering to get our point across? Do we really have to rely on baseline emotional appeals?
After all, you're not in favor of grieving mothers are you?
Perhaps this is not what Hoeppner was trying to do - if that is the case then I suppose I will owe her an apology. But it certainly seems to me that she is using the kind of argument that we free-gun advocates don't need to use: the argument against a long-gun registry should stand on its own, gimmick-free. Otherwise, it kind of cheapens any victory that might be achieved.
On a related note, see the The Agenda with Steve Paikin: Emotion and Public Policy.
Manitoba Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner, whose private member's bill to end the gun registry is now in committee stage, urged long-gun owners yesterday to keep up the pressure on opposition MPs to ensure the bill passes.Read the rest here.
In a speech to the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' annual general meeting in Mississauga, Hoeppner recalled a recent conversation with a mother whose daughter was shot dead by her former boyfriend.
"I told this mother, and I will tell you all today that if I believed the long-gun registry could do anything to stop the kind of grief and pain [this mother is experiencing], I would be the first one supporting it," Hoeppner said.
"But the sad truth is, the long-gun registry did not, and it does not have the capacity to have stopped that killing . . . or any of the crimes we see happen with guns in Canada."
Again, I agree with people such as Hoeppner that the long-gun registry has to go, but do we really have to use examples of tragedy and human suffering to get our point across? Do we really have to rely on baseline emotional appeals?
After all, you're not in favor of grieving mothers are you?
Perhaps this is not what Hoeppner was trying to do - if that is the case then I suppose I will owe her an apology. But it certainly seems to me that she is using the kind of argument that we free-gun advocates don't need to use: the argument against a long-gun registry should stand on its own, gimmick-free. Otherwise, it kind of cheapens any victory that might be achieved.
On a related note, see the The Agenda with Steve Paikin: Emotion and Public Policy.
Oh, those damned raw milk dairy farms...
...they're the blight of the Earth! Via CTV News:
What a load of bullshit. Or cowshit, in this instance. The laws might be different, but to simply rely on such hollow legalism completely misses the point: This is about the interaction of raw milk suppliers with raw milk consumers. If raw milk consumers are deemed safe in Ontario, there's no reason that they can't be deemed safe in BC. That's all there is to it.
This argument would make sense if the people accessing this dangerous, dangerous milk weren't doing so voluntarily - indeed, they're actively working together to circumvent the laws against selling raw milk to consumers ( which are completely nonsensical: It's legal to drink raw milk, just not to sell it ). One assumes that they've done so for a reason - we should respect that. The only problem is, our government doesn't.
For instance, look at this line from a column on the issue by Brian Lewis for the Province:
Ok, so let me get this straight. Even though ( I'm assuming ) cows in BC are largely the same as cows in Ontario, and even though they eat largely the same things, and receive ( I'm assuming ) largely the same treatment, and even though the milk ( I'm assuming ) is being handled in much the same way, Miriam Gropper's reason for not tying this in with Schmidt's victory is simply because the laws themselves are different?B.C.'s highest court has ordered a dairy farm in the Fraser Valley that sells unpasturized dairy to stop packaging or distributing its raw milk products.
The Fraser Health Authority first sought an injunction against Alice Jongerden, owner of the cow-share co-op Home on the Range in Chilliwack, on Feb. 1 -- two months after health authorities handed over cease and desist orders and forced depots to dump bottles of its milk.
The sale of raw milk has been prohibited in Canada since 1991, with health agencies saying it is a known health hazard. Cow-share operations like Jongerden's have sidestepped the law by allowing members to buy into their organization -- making them part owners of the animals. Jongerden distributed her raw dairy products, including cream, yogurt and milk, to members through various depots in Metro Vancouver.
In a written judgment released Thursday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Miriam Gropper granted the injunction to the health authority. She wrote Jongerden was "willingly causing a health hazard" by distributing the products from her facility.
Gropper said there is no doubt Jongerden breached B.C.'s Public Health Act and its regulations by conducting her business.
She added that because raw milk is presumed to be a known health hazard under provincial regulations, there is no opportunity for the court to make its own distinction regarding any health risks. She suggested Jongerden's next option may be to seek a change in the legislation.
"The remedy for the respondents is to convince the government to change the legislation."
Gropper threw out any comparison to Ontario farmer Michael Schmidt, who recently won a battle upholding the legality of his cow-share operation -- saying the provisions of the Ontario Milk Act are not translatable to the B.C. Public Health Act."While the cow-share program undertaken by Mr. Schmidt is the same or similar to that undertaken by Ms. Jongerden…, that is the only similarity to be found."
What a load of bullshit. Or cowshit, in this instance. The laws might be different, but to simply rely on such hollow legalism completely misses the point: This is about the interaction of raw milk suppliers with raw milk consumers. If raw milk consumers are deemed safe in Ontario, there's no reason that they can't be deemed safe in BC. That's all there is to it.
A spokesperson from Fraser Health said the agency is pleased their request for a permanent injunction was granted, adding that the pasteurization of milk raises milk to temperatures high enough to destroy harmful, disease-causing bacteria.Read the rest of the article here. There's more from the Province.
"The risk of disease from consuming these unpasteurized products is high and can cause serious illness in people, especially young children, the elderly, and those with weakened immune systems."
This argument would make sense if the people accessing this dangerous, dangerous milk weren't doing so voluntarily - indeed, they're actively working together to circumvent the laws against selling raw milk to consumers ( which are completely nonsensical: It's legal to drink raw milk, just not to sell it ). One assumes that they've done so for a reason - we should respect that. The only problem is, our government doesn't.
For instance, look at this line from a column on the issue by Brian Lewis for the Province:
Recently, health authorities seized Home On The Range milk from Lower Mainland distributors, then claimed through subsequent lab tests that it contained unacceptably high bacteria counts.Unacceptably high bacteria counts? Seriously? There is such a thing? One would imagine that an adult could make their own bacteria-related decisions, but I guess one would be wrong. I mean, we can make decisions about alcohol and transfats and tobacco, but bacteria? No, no, much too dangerous.
Sunday, 21 March, 2010
A new Coulter t-shirt
Head on over to Binks' place to check out the new Ann Coulter t-shirt being brought to us by Alexander of Hollywood ( design by Binks ).
It Was A Wonderful Life
By Jim Quinn, via TheBurningPlatform.com:
“Just a minute – just a minute. Now, hold on, Mr. Potter. You’re right when you say my father was no businessman. I know that. Why he ever started this cheap, penny-ante Building and Loan, I’ll never know. But neither you nor anyone else can say anything against his character, because his whole life was – why, in the twenty-five years since he and Uncle Billy started this thing, he never once thought of himself. Isn’t that right, Uncle Billy? He didn’t save enough money to send Harry to school, let alone me. But he did help a few people get out of your slums, Mr. Potter, and what’s wrong with that? Why – here, you’re all businessmen here. Doesn’t it make them better citizens? Doesn’t it make them better customers? You – you said – what’d you say a minute ago? They had to wait and save their money before they even ought to think of a decent home. Wait? Wait for what? Until their children grow up and leave them? Until they’re so old and broken down that they… Do you know how long it takes a working man to save five thousand dollars? Just remember this, Mr. Potter, that this rabble you’re talking about… they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community. Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath? Anyway, my father didn’t think so. People were human beings to him. But to you, a warped, frustrated old man, they’re cattle. Well, in my book he died a much richer man than you’ll ever be.” – Jimmy Stewart as George Bailey in It’s a Wonderful LifeRead the rest here.
The year was 1946. It marked the inauguration of the last High in America. A Crisis had begun abruptly with the 1929 Black Tuesday stock-market crash. After a three-year financial free fall, the ensuing Great Depression prompted FDR’s New Deal social welfare programs, an enormous extension of government, and expectations for a revitalization of our national community. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, America planned, mobilized, and manufactured for conflict on a level that made possible the colossal D-Day invasion. Two years later, the Crisis mood eased with America’s unexpectedly painless demobilization. Director Frank Capra produced and directed one of the most beloved movies of all-time in 1946 – It’s a Wonderful Life. The movie is a beloved Christmas classic. It is a story of hope, redemption, belief in the goodness of man, and belief in God. If you are down in the dumps or depressed, watch this movie and your spirits will be lifted. What is less evident, but more pertinent today, is the distinction between the America that we were versus the America we could have become. The America we did not want to become was controlled and manipulated by an evil, soul-less banker. It was a dark foreboding Gomorrah-like world of bars, strip joints, casinos and tenement housing. The citizens were angry, rude and mistrustful. In the movie, George Bailey, played by Jimmy Stewart, is able to see how his small town would have turned out if he had never been born. In the real world, people and countries don’t have an opportunity to see how their decisions will affect the future. The American people and their elected leaders have made some dreadful decisions since 1946 that have drained the life out of the American Dream. God and morality have lost their meaning and importance in modern America. When the distinction between good and evil is blurred by the media and intellectuals, the degradation of society and morality leads to a downward death spiral.
Front and Centre with Alex Tsakumis, episode two
For those of you who are interested, here's episode two of Alex Tsakumis video podcast, 'Front and Centre':
Stay classy, Kash Heed
Via the Colonist:
Solicitor-General Kash Heed is criticizing the judgment of the latest group of snowmobilers caught in a deadly avalanche northwest of Revelstoke.Read the rest here.
Heed said yesterday that the death of Calgary resident Kelly Reitenbach in the avalanche at Eagle Pass Mountain on Friday afternoon could have been prevented if those in the group had taken avalanche warnings seriously.
"People need to pay attention and adjust their activities based on these warnings," he said. "These are preventable accidents and tragedies."
Heed also praised the search-and-rescue workers after the second deadly avalanche in a week in the area swept snowmobilers away. The first slide, on March 13, killed two people.
He noted that rescue workers are put at risk when they are called out, and called it "disgusting" that those who refuse to heed avalanche warnings are risking others' lives.
Saturday, 20 March, 2010
Well this is reassuring
Via CTV News: N.S. woman tired of being declared dead:
Theresa Fraser wants people to know that reports of her death have been greatly exaggerated. But the federal government doesn't seem to be getting the message.Read the rest here.
Fraser, from a little Nova Scotia town called Garden of Eden, has been declared dead by the federal government – twice in the last four months.
She is, of course, very much alive, and hopping mad the Canada Revenue Agency seems so keen on insisting she's not.
Fraser says the first incident happened late last year, when she went to pick up money from her monthly Old Age Security payment.
"I went to the bank at the end of November for my cheque to get some money out to pay my bills and things, and do some Christmas shopping," she told CTV's Canada AM from New Glasgow, N.S.
The bank teller told her the cheque hadn't been auto-deposited. So she and the teller decided to call the CRA together to find out why. They were told that the government was under the impression Fraser was dead. The teller assured the agent she was not.
Fraser was told the problem would be fixed and not long after, her OAS payment arrived in her account. The spry 77-year-old thought that was the end of it and laughed it off.
But on March 9, she was declared dead again. She received a letter from the CRA asking her to return the GST rebate cheque for $94.50 that they had sent to her in January. This time, Fraser wasn't laughing.
Friday, 19 March, 2010
I hate it when I'm right
*Crossposted to the Libertas Post blog.
Earlier this week, I wrote in the Libertas Post that:
Paul Wells for Macleans.ca, writing about the Conservatives' approach to the will-they-or-won't-they on contraceptives and abortion in their maternal health initiative:
Stephen Harper has already made it plain that the fiscal conservative/libertarian block of the party base isn't calling the shots. We've kind of resigned ourselves to that fate. In fact, if you look at this speech ( h/t Paul Wells ) that Stephen Harper made back in the heady days of the Canadian Alliance party, you'll see that he was already outlining a plan to shift the Conservative focus to more social conservative issues, albeit while maintaining position on economic issues, in 2003.
Well, the economic issues backslid, and badly. That's undeniable. But the social conservatives could maintain at least some hope that their issues would remain at the forefront of the 'agenda'. indeed, Paul Wells ( again ), in a lengthy article for Macleans, notes the apparent rise in social conservatism within the party.
However, as the above quoted text would seem to make clear, whatever hopes the social conservative wing of the party might have, this is not likely to translate into any significant stands by the Tories. Incrementalism might have been the name of the game at some point, but I would seriously caution SoCons from having faith in that particular process considering how it failed their libertarian brethren in no uncertain terms.
I'll close by noting an article by John Ivitson for the Post. In it, he outlines three, count 'em, three, areas where the Tories have recently flip-flopped: the ten-percenters issue, the contraceptives issue, and the decision to cut rural internet access funding.
These aren't all isolated incidents. It forms a pattern that the various composite segments of the Tory base simply can't ignore or whitewash any longer. The Tories will fail you when it suits their purposes. Get used to it.
Earlier this week, I wrote in the Libertas Post that:
The Tories are gambling the needs of their traditional base—which adheres to bedrock conservative principles—against the desires of a new base that they're hoping to attract. The Conservatives are betting that their base will not become so upset as to stop supporting the party, even as it attempts to move towards the center on certain issues to win the support of voters with centrist/Liberal leanings.Well, even though ( especially in this case ) I would probably like best to be proven wrong, the facts seem to be conspiring in favor of my analysis.
Paul Wells for Macleans.ca, writing about the Conservatives' approach to the will-they-or-won't-they on contraceptives and abortion in their maternal health initiative:
Read it all here.Got it. No doors closed, including to contraception. But what about abortion? Here, too, the language was peculiar and meticulously deployed. Harper: “But we do not want a debate, here or elsewhere, on abortion.” Oda: “And as we have been saying all along, we are not opening the abortion debate.”
Well, what the hell does that mean?
Julie O’Neill’s story, the second one I link above, seems to take “we do not want a debate on abortion” to mean “we do not want abortion.” That would certainly be one way to read it, probably the obvious way. In fact John Ibbitson’s story, the first linked above, says that’s how Lawrence Cannon reads it: Ibbitson says that on one of the chat shows later this afternoon, Cannon “insisted that this government would not fund new family planning initiatives that include the option of abortion, though other G8 governments might choose to do otherwise.”
[...]
Rather, I think this is more telling. At least since 2005, when Stephen Harper says he does not want to re-open the debate on abortion, he has always meant he did not want to limit access to abortion where it is now available. See for yourself. “Throughout his political career, the prime minister has been clear on this issue,” Dimitri Soudas, Harper’s spokesman, said in December 2008. “We will not introduce or support legislation on abortion.”
Stephen Harper has already made it plain that the fiscal conservative/libertarian block of the party base isn't calling the shots. We've kind of resigned ourselves to that fate. In fact, if you look at this speech ( h/t Paul Wells ) that Stephen Harper made back in the heady days of the Canadian Alliance party, you'll see that he was already outlining a plan to shift the Conservative focus to more social conservative issues, albeit while maintaining position on economic issues, in 2003.
Well, the economic issues backslid, and badly. That's undeniable. But the social conservatives could maintain at least some hope that their issues would remain at the forefront of the 'agenda'. indeed, Paul Wells ( again ), in a lengthy article for Macleans, notes the apparent rise in social conservatism within the party.
However, as the above quoted text would seem to make clear, whatever hopes the social conservative wing of the party might have, this is not likely to translate into any significant stands by the Tories. Incrementalism might have been the name of the game at some point, but I would seriously caution SoCons from having faith in that particular process considering how it failed their libertarian brethren in no uncertain terms.
I'll close by noting an article by John Ivitson for the Post. In it, he outlines three, count 'em, three, areas where the Tories have recently flip-flopped: the ten-percenters issue, the contraceptives issue, and the decision to cut rural internet access funding.
These aren't all isolated incidents. It forms a pattern that the various composite segments of the Tory base simply can't ignore or whitewash any longer. The Tories will fail you when it suits their purposes. Get used to it.
Well, we knew this was going to happen, didn't we?
The post-Olympics lawsuits come fast and furious.
Jesse Ferreras reports via The Hook: Whistler market, claiming Olympics hurt sales, may sue landlord; and Olympics killed year’s worth of business, says heliski firm suing VANOC.
Meanwhile, by Clare Ogilve, via the Colonist: Olympic contractors worry about being paid.
You know, I think I can feel the GDP rising as Ispeak write.
Jesse Ferreras reports via The Hook: Whistler market, claiming Olympics hurt sales, may sue landlord; and Olympics killed year’s worth of business, says heliski firm suing VANOC.
Meanwhile, by Clare Ogilve, via the Colonist: Olympic contractors worry about being paid.
You know, I think I can feel the GDP rising as I
"Just watch us"
Aaron Wherry has the story:
I assume by 'Just watch us' he means the Liberals plan to look brave, turn and run with their tails between their legs at the threat of an election, and screw over the NDP while Jack Layton bravely tries to tie the issue into EI reform.
Have I got that about right, Bob?
Bob Rae was asked yesterday how far the opposition was willing to go to obtain documents related to the Afghan detainee affair and, paraphrasing Pierre Trudeau, responded, “Just watch us.”
I assume by 'Just watch us' he means the Liberals plan to look brave, turn and run with their tails between their legs at the threat of an election, and screw over the NDP while Jack Layton bravely tries to tie the issue into EI reform.
Have I got that about right, Bob?
Wilt under Coberre's gaze if you know what's good for you
Seriously, look in his eyes and tell me that you'd like to meet him in a dark alley. The man makes girl guide cookies sinister.
Thursday, 18 March, 2010
The obligatory cliched apology post
Posting has been late, of late, and I apologise for that. My blogging energy's been on the low setting for the past few days, and it looks like it might be that way for a while. Or rather, what energy I have will probably be redirected to other projects. And so this one will suffer.
Wednesday, 17 March, 2010
My latest, for the Libertas Post
Here's my latest for the Libertas Post blog: Weeding out Marc Emery's supporters.
The Month of Earle - part fifteen
This will probably be the last instalment of the Month of Earle series for the next little while. I'll probably pick it up again once the trial starts up.
At any rate, in this instalment I thought that it would be fitting to end with some more of Guy Earle's words on his situation. Here's an article that he wrote for the Western Standard.ca a couple of years ago: A bitter joke:
At any rate, in this instalment I thought that it would be fitting to end with some more of Guy Earle's words on his situation. Here's an article that he wrote for the Western Standard.ca a couple of years ago: A bitter joke:
It is said that everybody has a story. Every pair of eyes you randomly encounter comes with a tale of woe and wonder. Everyone has intrinsic worth. No matter who we are, there is a diamond buried inside all of us. This gem is a key to a life mystery that could potentially bring an open mind closer to true human enlightenment. If we free ourselves from ego and prejudice, and really listen to all the new people we meet, every moment we share on this blissful planet, we can better ourselves.Read the rest here.
I met some new people on May 22nd of last year. These three chicks in comfortable shoes relocated from the patio to a booth closest to the stage I was on during the edgiest weekly comedy show in Vancouver, Canada. Officially, our first meeting was not recorded in the history books of human enlightenment as a pleasant exchange.
[...]
This triad of wet sticks had no interest in any life lessons I was preaching from my pulpit. You see, I am a stand-up comic, the host of an open stage, a purveyor of ideas and concepts designed to create some small effect in the progressive mind of an enthusiastic patron looking to question his or her own status quo.
This cool Tuesday night show, ended up in a spat between three lesbian hecklers and my amplified sarcasm. Now, I find myself the target of an HRC (Human Rights Commission) tribunal. Apparently, dealing with a heckler, in a mutually abusive and rude verbal volley, is tantamount to discrimination of service. Surely, the HRC has extended their jurisdiction, finally, too far.
Art is not normal nor complacent; it is shocking and offensive. At least, we hope it is. It means we live in a free society. But, it is one thing to be offended by a painting and quite another to be offended in person. The special nature of a stand-up comedy show, connects the artist with their critics, live, in real-time. (Gee, isn’t that curious? A brand of art is known as "stand-up"...)
Good luck with that
By Bruno Waterfield, via The Telegraph:
H/t to Vlad Tepes.
Faisal Yamani, a Jeddah based lawyer, is planning to take a case to London's libel courts on behalf of over 90,000 descendants of Mohammed who have claimed that the drawings have defamed them and the Islamic faith.Despair for the human race, etc.
Cartoon caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed were published in Danish newspapers in 2006 triggering violent protests across the Muslim world and riots which claimed the lives of over 50 people.
According to Danish press reports, the case can be heard in the Britain because the images, including a caricature of Mohammed with a bomb shaped turban, have been freely accessible via the internet.
H/t to Vlad Tepes.
Tuesday, 16 March, 2010
The Month of Earle - part fourteen
In this instalment of the Month of Earle series, I'd like to highlight a little more background for the Guy Earle case.
Eye Weekly has a great article about Guy Earle's trial, some of the background, Guy Earle himself, etc.: Guy Earle: human wrong.
Meanwhile, Xtra.ca has a rather less sympathetic take on events: Lesbians targeted at Zesty's.
Both are worth reading.
Eye Weekly has a great article about Guy Earle's trial, some of the background, Guy Earle himself, etc.: Guy Earle: human wrong.
Meanwhile, Xtra.ca has a rather less sympathetic take on events: Lesbians targeted at Zesty's.
Both are worth reading.
Monday, 15 March, 2010
Fun with courts
Giacomo Vigna's lawsuit against Ezra Levant goes to court today:
Good luck, Ezra. I'll be looking forward to a ruling in your favor.
As I noted here, the trial had originally been scheduled for February, but was postponed until today.
If you're in town and want to come by, feel free -- it's in room 35, and runs from about 10 a.m. until 5 p.m., with a break for lunch. The trial is set to run all week, but there's a chance it might end early.
Good luck, Ezra. I'll be looking forward to a ruling in your favor.
Happy Birthday to me
Well, today's my 18th birthday. Yay me, I guess. Now I get to do all those fun things that 18 year olds get to do, like, um....
The Wonder Years - part two
In this second instalment of my The Wonder Years series, I'd like to highlight a story from my very own province of British Columbia. Via the CBC: Black armbands a charter right: B.C. teachers:
By the way, feel free to hit me up with any links or stories that you think might be appropriate for this new series.
Stay tuned...
Some B.C. teachers say their charter right to free speech was denied when officials ordered them to take off black armbands they wore to protest mandatory testing.Read the rest here.
The president of the Kamloops-Thompson Teachers Federation, David Komljenovic, said four teachers wore black armbands to school in the southern Interior community in a quiet protest last year, until school administrators told them to take them off.
[...]
"It was fairly innocuous. To the teachers it represented their displeasure with the [mandatory tests]. The board said because that was a contentious issue, they weren't permitted to do so and were directed to remove them," he said.
Many B.C. teachers and their union oppose the provincewide tests known as Foundation Skills Assessments, which are given each year to Grade 4 and Grade 7 students, saying they are not useful and inaccurate. They also question the way they are used to rank schools.
"It's unfortunate that our school board feels at least that once teachers walk into a school building they don't any longer have freedom of expression rights," said Komljenovic, who compared the armbands to religious symbols a teacher might wear to class.
By the way, feel free to hit me up with any links or stories that you think might be appropriate for this new series.
Stay tuned...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)