On April 21, 2012, Freedom Party of Ontario held its “Red Alert” dinner on the top floor of the Primrose Hotel in Toronto. The video of the event was released in parts. This second part features a speech by Freedom Party officer and election campaign manager Robert Vaughan, who was emcee for the event.
From the National Post:
“Last week, Jessie Sansone of Kitchener, Ont., was arrested inside his children’s school when he arrived to pick them up after class. He was strip searched and thrown in a cell, while his wife was brought into the police station and his children taken by Family and Children’s Services. After several hours, Sansone was suddenly released with apologies, and told the entire ordeal was triggered when his four-year-old daughter’s teacher reported there may have been a gun in Sansone’s home. The basis of this allegation was a picture she’d drawn of her daddy shooting monsters and bad guys. Sansone is not a firearms owner, and the closest thing to a gun the police found after searching his home was a plastic toy.”
The victims in this story are of course Mr. Sansone, his wife, and their children.
The villains? Let’s make a list;
The teacher who upon seeing what must have been a remarkably rendered drawing for a four year old of a toy gun decides to tell the principle of the school of a potential threat to the welfare of the child.
The principal who calls Family and Children’s Services,
Family and Children’s Services who immediately call the police,
The police, who show up to the school in marked cars and uniforms who handcuff Mr. Sansone and take him away in front of children and neighbours to be stripped searched and held for hours,
The Superintendent of Education at the Waterloo Region District School Board, Gregg Bereznick, who defended the actions of his staff saying that educators are “co-parents,”
And Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty who defended the action of the school.
To be clear at the outset, any adult who has reasonable grounds to suspect that a child in their care is being mistreated by anyone should report their suspicions.
That being said here is what was wrong with the behaviour of all of the villains I have listed. They are insane. They are nuts. They are lunatics who should not be in the charge of children, arresting people, running school boards, or running a government. That’s my knee-jerk opinion of course. The same opinion held by almost anyone who has heard this story.
A more considered analysis would take the following form:
It is not unlawful for Canadians to own guns, even handguns under special permission. Therefore if a child draws a parent with a gun shooting monsters and bad people then the proper action for the teacher should have been, “That’s nice, dear. I hope he got them all.” Who among us, males especially, as children have not defaced their school work with drawing of tanks, jet planes dropping bombs, zombies and blood covered NAZIS? Of course the older ones among us remember a time when guns were thought of as weapons to defend ourselves and to hunt with. They still are but unfortunately around the late 1960s the liberal revolution of the state education system implemented a systemic program of indoctrination into the pacification of the populace. I remember as a School Board Trustee on the London Board that some Trustees would even correct other Trustees if they referred to the little dots preceding a point in a written document as “bullets.” They were told to call them “fuzzy dots” or something equally as inoffensive.
Such a dangerous philosophy as pacifism has disarmed us and has given many of us adults and our children the incorrect notion that guns, whether long guns or hand guns, are evil and that they should be abolished. Well that is of course wrong. Guns are tools which can defend your life and that of your family. If anything children are to be taught anything about guns it should be on how to use them. People should be allowed to buy and carry handguns. It flows from our basic right to our life that we have a basic right to defend it and there is no better means than a .44 strapped to your hip.
That leads me to the police. They could have stopped this witch hunt in its tracks by telling the principal that a drawing of a gun does not give them probable cause to arrest and strip search anyone. It does not give them cause to enter into anyone’s house and search it. They should have chastised the principal and the Family and Children’s Services personnel and directed them to stop wasting their time. But, unfortunately the police in this country have been led to believe, erroneously that they are the only ones who should be entrusted with guns. They believe, erroneously that they have an exclusive monopoly on their possession and use and that any civilian in possession of one is a danger to their children and the public.
As the police were taking Mr. Sansone into custody Family and Children’s Services were taking the children into their custody. And these are the villains we must watch the closest. While the police eventually let Mr. Sansone go with an apology, these were the words from Alison Scott, the executive director of Family and Children’s Services “We’re still investigating this one,” The parents should move out of town now that Family and Children’s Services have their eyes on their children.
Superintendent of Education, Gregg Bereznick’s comment about how teachers are “co-parents” has perhaps riled up people the most in this sordid affair. An educator definitely acts in loco parentis or in place of the parents as any adult does who is given temporary charge over a child while the parent is away, such as a baby-sitter. But in loco parentis does not mean that an educator can indoctrinate the child in contrast to a parent’s wishes. In loco parentis is restricted by the nature of the relationship between the parent and the adult given temporary charge of the child. In this case a teacher’s responsibility is to teach the child and not attempt to ferret out dirt on the parents so that the state can arrest them. Co-parenting implies an equal responsibility in the upbringing of the child. This is not the case. It doesn’t even come close to the case and any notion that a teacher might have that he or she is a co-parent of their student must be dismissed here and now and once and for all.
The raisson d’etre of the state education system is the political indoctrination of children. This case illustrates that purpose perfectly. My advice to any parent with a child in public school is to get their children out of there as soon as possible. If not, then I would strongly suggest that when your child returns home you ask them about their teachers and what they have learned and that you de-program them. At the very least teach them to be free thinkers and to suspect that anything a teacher tells them to be true is probably incorrect and that they must prove for themselves that it is correct.
Finally, to the biggest villain of them all, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty. Although if Tim Hudak and the Conservatives, or Andrea Horvath and the New Democrats were in power I would addressing this to them as well because they are three peas in an intellectual pod. Get out of our children’s minds. Stop filling their heads with lies. Abolish the School Boards, put every public school up for sale and let parents have a choice in where they send their children and their tuition. Dismantle this indoctrination machine called the Public Education System and let Ontario children grow up unencumbered by your anti-intellectual, anti-reason, garbage spewed at them every day in the classroom.
(Originally aired on Just Right #239, March 1, 2012)
“On your birthday, I shall not bow to you. I shall not kiss your hand. Rather, I shall shake it as equals do, and smile at you as you smile at me. I shall speak to you as a friend, no more.
“On your birthday, I find you wherever I turn. I will say that I have loved aspects of you, hated others, and could not understand many more.
“On your birthday, I will say that I have loved the rebel in you, that you’ve always been a source of inspiration to me, and that I do not like the halos of divinity around you. I shall not pray for you.”
Within hours there were tens of thousands of Twitter responses calling Mr. Kashgari an apostate and a blasphemer and that he should be executed. A Facebook page was created to call for his execution with over 13,000 people joining it.
Fearing for his life, Kashgari boarded a plane for New Zealand on Sunday. Unfortunately for him it had a stop-over in Malaysia, a predominantly Muslim country. Upon landing he was arrested and repatriated back to Saudi Arabia. Malaysian police in Kuala Lumpur said Kashgari was detained at the airport “following a request made to us by Interpol” the international police cooperation agency, on behalf of the Saudi authorities.
Interpol has issued a rather vague statement distancing itself from the case.
“The assertion that Saudi Arabia used Interpol’s system in this case is wholly misleading and erroneous.
“(Interpol) has not been involved in the case involving a Saudi blogger arrested in Malaysia and deported to Saudi Arabia. No Interpol channels, its National Central Bureaus in Kuala Lumpur and Riyadh nor its General Secretariat headquarters in Lyon, France were involved at any time in this case.”
It is difficult to determine whether or not Interpol was involved because the statement it released does not answer the question directly.
It says that it is misleading and erroneous that Saudi Arabia used Interpol’s system. Erroneous perhaps but how is it misleading? Did any other Muslim country ask Interpol to red flag Mr. Kashgari’s flight? They don’t say.
Interpol also refers to a “Saudi blogger” which may or may not be Kargashi who is a journalist and not primarily a blogger. There is a lot of evasion and possible misdirection in Interpol’s statement.
On the other hand the Malaysian police have been pretty clear that they arrested the man due to Interpol’s involvement at the request of Saudi Arabia. If this is true then Interpol has a lot to answer for.
Here are some facts regarding Interpol:
It is not a police force. It does not make arrests. It is primarily a central hub of information between national police forces from 190 countries. It collects and relays information on individual criminals and suspects alerting police departments as to their whereabouts. It’s headquartered in Lyon, France and has several offices throughout the world. In Canada it shares offices with the RCMP in Ottawa. Canada’s annual contribution to their budget is $2 million.
According to Interpol’s website it does not involve itself in political or religious matters and follows the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights when determining when to get involved in disseminating information. Part of the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights is the right to free speech which is contained in its preamble, and freedom of religion.
Clearly, if Interpol had any involvement in the arrest of this man for simply saying that he did not want to pray for Muhammad, and if Mr. Kashgari gets executed for his beliefs then Interpol should consider itself complicit in his execution. If such is the case, whoever was responsible for passing on to Malaysia the fact that Mr. Kashgari was on the flight to New Zealand must be held personally accountable.
Malaysia should not get off scot-free either. Their extradition of Mr. Kashgari, without any due process, back into the hands of the Saudis is unforgivable. They don’t even have a formal agreement on extradition with Saudi Arabia. Anyone traveling anywhere near Malaysia should take note that if at any time in their past they may have said anything about Islam which might be taken as offense they may end up being executed for it, thanks to Malaysia. Besides Saudi Arabia, a despotic, backward country of homophobes and misogynists which should be ostracized by the civilized world we can now add Malaysia to the list of pariah nations.
As for our own involvement in Interpol I think our government should demand a clearer statement from Interpol regarding this case, and if they find they were involved should seriously consider restricting the information it shares with this organization for fear that innocent Canadian be rounded up for their religious or political views.
To be sure, on the face of it an organization like Interpol which has been around since 1923 may very well play an important role in the capture of real criminals and terrorists but since many of its member nations are predominantly Muslim (including Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran) then its commitment to non-involvement in political and religious crimes is suspect.
The issue has come about due to a rather unusual event which took place here in London where 20 people were rounded up in the street and told to appear before a judge the next day as potential jurors.
Here is what happened:
On January 17th, three men were being tried for the serious offenses of assault, forcible confinement, and threats. It had been over two years since the crimes and this was the third attempt at beginning the proceedings when the judge ran out of jurors having vetted over 130 already. There was still one vacancy for an alternate juror called a talesman. Not wishing to see trial delayed any further Justice Kelley Gorman ordered the Middlesex County Sheriff and the London police to round up 20 bystanders off the street and order them to appear in court the next day as potential jurors.
Here are the observations (from the London Free Press) of one of these hapless people, a mister Scott Johnston who likened his experience to bullying.
“I was walking to my car on a darkened street corner when approached by a woman. I was asked if I could be spoken to for a minute. I decline and politely indicate am in a hurry. All of a sudden, out comes a sheriff’s badge pointed towards me and I am told that I “have to speak to her and that I cannot leave.
“At that moment, a uniformed officer who was standing a bit of a distance away walked over to the side of the woman and looked at me but said nothing. I thought to myself that I have no option but to remain because if I tried to leave there would have been a chase or worse.
“I was asked two questions: Are you a Canadian citizen? Are you over 18? I answered yes. I was then presented with a piece of paper and asked for identification in the form of a driver’s license. I produced it and the sheriff started writing down my name and address information on a clipboard. I was informed I must show up in court the very next morning at 9:30 am for jury duty.”
These 20 people were being rounded up under a little used provision of the Canadian Criminal Code called section 642(1) Summoning other jurors when panel exhausted. It reads:
“If a full jury and any alternate jurors considered advisable cannot be provided notwithstanding that the relevant provisions of this Part have been complied with, the court may, at the request of the prosecutor, order the sheriff or other proper officer to summon without delay as many persons, whether qualified jurors or not, as the court directs for the purpose of providing a full jury and alternate jurors.”
When I first asked the question whether or not people should be compelled to sit as jurors I am willing to bet to anyone not familiar with these events that you might find it reasonable to receive a letter in the mail asking you to report in two to three weeks’ time, plenty of time for many of us to put their affairs in order, and report to the courthouse for jury duty. You might also have expected that you would be given the opportunity to get out of jury duty due to extenuating circumstances. And you would be right. This is how it is usually done. But many of those rounded up had missed trains (as Mr. Johnston had), or work, or had to arrange for baby-sitting, or any other myriad of excuses that 20 people might have had given the order to forget about what you had planned for tomorrow because you are going to court.
This Criminal Code provision, while an obvious attempt to allow for speedy justice, is unjust in itself. What it does is take innocent people, subject them to force and given no option but to comply regardless of circumstance.
But is jury duty under any circumstances justified?
Consider this quote from Cicero:
“We are all servants of the laws in order that we may be free.”
By this I take it that the Roman Statesman was acknowledging the fact that in order to be free in a political context there must be laws, and by implication a system of justice. If we accept this then must we accept to have our rights infringed upon from time to time as a price to pay for the enacting of this system of justice?
On the one hand I would agree that the right to a trial by a jury is a fundamental component of a system of justice. The alternative would be that for every serious offense you are to be prosecuted by the state and judged by an employee of the state. To be able to plead your case to a community of peers is a fundamental component of our judicial system.
But must we compel citizens to sit in judgment of us? I don’t believe so and for the following reason, you are compelling someone to think.
Put yourself in the shoes of those 20 people rounded up. Section 642(1) states that while it is the judge who gave the order it was at the request of the prosecutor. So here you are, totally inconvenienced and possibly at great expense sitting in judgment of three people the same prosecutor wants you to find guilty. Do you think that it is possible that out of resentment for the actions of the prosecutor you find in the defendants favour just to spite the prosecutor? In other words, the compulsion to attend has tainted your ability to think through the facts of the case without bias.
I would contend that only a jury made up of volunteers, properly compensated for their time, is able to properly consider the facts of any court case without bias for or against the accused due to the manner in which they were asked to act as jurors.
There are thousands of eligible citizens in this city willing and able to perform the function of a juror if they were treated with respect, if their rights were not violated, if they were properly requested to attend, if they were given opportunity to decline, and if they were compensated for their time.
Yes, by today’s law you may be able to lead a juror to court but you cannot make him think. And that after all, is exactly why he is there.
(Originally broadcast on Just Right #235, February 2, 2012)
On Sun News Network this week Brian Lilly lamented the fact that the country has no truly conservative politicians. Not to let that one go, several people e-mailed Mr. Lilly and reminded him that the Freedom Party of Ontario has one of the most fiscally conservative platforms ever heard of in this province. Subsequently Mr. Lilly had the Leader of the Freedom Party on his show and he was forced to rescind his previous notion that a truly fiscal conservative party doesn’t exist.
There is, however another kind of conservatism in Canada, social conservatism. This has come to be embodied in the Conservative Party of Canada under its Leader Stephen Harper. Mr. Harper’s Conservatives are certainly not fiscally conservative judging by their past two terms in power, albeit with a minority. The next five years with a majority I fear will only reinforce the country’s opinion of them as foolhardy tax and spend liberals.
While we can fault them for their overtaxing and overspending we certainly cannot fault them not being socially conservative. Although I wish we could.
This week Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, the same man personally responsible for incarcerating Marc Emery in the United States for selling cannabis seeds to Americans, introduced an Omnibus Crime Bill. Some of the provisions of the crime bill (Bill C-10). I actually support, coming down harder on youths who commit violent crime, increasing jail time for certain offence involving children and ending house-arrest for perpetrators of violent crimes, and allowing terrorism victims to sue terrorists and their supporters. I have often thought that our criminal justice system was soft when it came to sentencing violent criminals.
But there are provisions in this new bill which can only be described as chilling.
I have written before about the nature of conservatism and its desire to control people based on a conservative’s unnatural sense of morality. A morality based primarily on mysticism, religion and superstition. I have previously identified conservatives as being intrinsicists, people who believe that things are bad in and of themselves with little consideration given to reason, or an individual’s right to decide what is good for them without interference from Big Brother.
Part of the Crime Bill calls for draconian prison terms for people who grow cannabis plants. If you have 6 – 200 plants you are to be given an automatic 6-month sentence, with an extra three months if it’s done in a rental property or is deemed a public-safety hazard. If you grow from 201 to 500 plants you get a minimum one year sentence or 1 ½ years if it in a rental or poses a safety risk. The maximum sentence for growing any marijuana at all would double from seven to 14 years.
These sentences are something I might expect coming from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan where individual rights don’t exist and the state dictates what it considers to be moral.
Compare these sentences to the new sentences being proposed for child sex crimes. According to The Province, a British Columbia newspaper, the pot grower who is caught growing 201 pot plants would receive a longer mandatory sentence…
than someone who rapes a toddler or forces a five-year-old to have sex with an animal.
A pedophile who gets a child to watch pornography with him, or a pervert exposing himself to kids at a playground, would receive a minimum 90-day sentence, half the term of a man convicted of growing six pot plants in his own home.
The 14 year maximum sentence for growing pot is…
the same maximum applied to someone using a weapon during a child rape and four years more than for someone sexually assaulting a kid without using a weapon.
The contempt Stephen Harper and his socially conservative Neanderthals have for the pot plant and for the literally millions of Canadians who have or do smoke pot is enormous. Stephen Harper would obviously prefer you rape a child than grow a pot plant. A little harsh you think? I don’t. As we speak Marc Emery has three years to go on a five year prison term in the United States after the Harper government turned him over to the DEA who came to Canada and arrested him on Canadian soil for selling pot seeds, something which is punishable by a only a small fine in this country.
Also in the Crime Bill are provisions which tug at that very fine thread of justice that has protected the innocent from an overpowering state.
The Bill proposes to allow the police to detain terrorism suspects for up to three days without charges. It will also allow judges to jail witnesses who won’t testify about terrorism. Now what can be so bad about these new powers we give to the police and the courts? The problem is that giving the police and courts more power for one cause opens the door to giving them power for any cause. Today you may be jailed for failing to testify what you know about your neighbour’s possible terrorist activities and tomorrow you will be jailed for not testifying about what you know about your neighbour’s pot growing activities. It will only require a slight change of wording in the legislation.
It is a slippery slope Mr. Harper will create when he seeks to curtail our rights no matter how noble he believes the reason to be. Catching terrorists by eroding our right not to be arbitrarily detained by the police or our right not to be compelled to testify only proves that the terrorists are winning with Stephen Harper’s help. If their goal is to destabilize our freedoms and change this country into one they are familiar with, a despotic autocracy and if Prime Minister Harper gives into their demands and strips away our rights and freedoms then he will be hailed as a hero by the terrorists and a villain by peace-loving Canadians.
Originally aired on Just Right #218, September 22, 2011.
I do not normally use the word sacred but if there was any unholy thing on Earth worthy of veneration it would be The American Declaration of Independence. At once it is not simply a political document but a moral one. Its preamble, in so few words expresses more than any tome or volume preceding it. Its simplicity in purpose is almost sublime.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.
While it is true that the Americans had just cause to form their own nation and valid grievances with a despotic monarch it may be said that the same lust for individual freedom was felt by those in the other British colonies. As Jefferson said: “all men are created equal.” We all share a desire for individual freedom.
It is ironic then that the 13 colonies of the United States saw fit not just to declare themselves independent but to invade Canada when the inhabitants of Canada did not share the same grievences with King George III.
While these invasions were successfully repelled with the aid of the aboriginals, the remainder of British North America saw a different way. A way to advance the cause of independence and even freedom while maintaining a hold on the hundreds of years old institutions of Great Britain, including the monarchy. Our way was more conservative, more in the vein of Edmund Burke.
Burke was sympathetic to the American Revolution and used his position in the British Parliament to try and persuade the King to ease the duty levied on tea lest the American’s choose to rebel.
Again and again, revert to your old principles—seek peace and ensue it; leave America, if she has taxable matter in her, to tax herself. I am not here going into the distinctions of rights, nor attempting to mark their boundaries. I do not enter into these metaphysical distinctions; I hate the very sound of them. Leave the Americans as they anciently stood, and these distinctions, born of our unhappy contest, will die along with it….
The King did not relent and the Americans choose freedom over British sovereignty. But in doing so they did what Burke feared, they began to mark the boundaries of Rights, first with the Declaration of Independence then later with the Constitution of the United States. Burke correctly saw the danger of listing the rights of man, for even though in the Declaration of Independence Jefferson said “among these” and later in the Constitution the ninth amendment said “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Burke seemed to know that once you begin to mark the boundaries of rights what is omitted is said not to exist at all. Rights not clearly included in Constitution would be trampled upon by government.
As I said, the Declaration of Independence was a remarkable document. If left to that alone the United States may have achieved so much more than it already has. And while the demarcation of rights and the Constitution of the United States may have seemed like a good idea at the time I suspect that it marked the beginning of the end for freedom in the United States.
The Constitution gave Congress the right to impose taxes on its citizens and to borrow money on the credit of the United States. Both flaws have been magnified over the years to the extent that today taxation is several fold what King George taxed them and their debt is, as we know, astronomical and quite impossible to repay. The writing is on the wall for the United States of America.
By contrast we here in Canada have nothing to compare to a Declaration of Independence. The British North America Act is a piece of dry compromises and dealings, the result of many years of negotiations with the four original colonies and PEI. Our nation was not born of blood in the way the United States was. It was an orderly, organic and a slow reformation of British colonies. But this was not such a bad thing; in fact, over the test of time I would dare say that ours may have been the better way. That is until the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was folded into the BNA Act to become the Constitution Act. With the Charter of Rights we have endangered every right we had recognized before by their exclusion.
Consider Karen Selick’s column in National Post of June 28th where she notes that Justice Anotonio Lamer of the Supreme Court of Canada rejected any economic rights and raised doubts about whether economic liberty should be considered part of the “life, liberty and security of the person” which were guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since economic rights were not mentioned therefore he apparently concluded we do not have them. This of course is how governments begin to fall, with the trampling of rights based on their exclusion from Charters and Constitutions.
In the same article Selick notes that as far back as 1909 the B.C. Supreme Court recognized that
Among the normal rights which are available to every British subject against all the world are…the unmolested pursuit of ones’ trade or occupation and…to one’s own property.
Before their enumeration in Constitutions rights were living things freely recognized by all and by the Courts. Canada fared relatively well without a demarcation of rights in a Constitution relying on 700 years of jurisprudence and common law. Burke said it best when he said,
…the people of the colonies are descendants of Englishmen…. They are therefore not only devoted to liberty, but to liberty according to English ideas and on English principles.
He was not only speaking of the American colonies but of all the British North American Colonies.
Tomorrow celebrate Canada Day. I suggest that just before we set off our fireworks we give a thought to the hundreds of years of legal tradition, thought and care which went into creating this nation and some thought as to how fragile our rights are and how, with the stroke of a Judge’s pen they can be violated.
On July 4th our neighbours celebrate their day of Independence from Britain and the forming of a country which although reveres the rights of man has endangered those very rights by enumerating them. They too should give pause as to how much longer than can celebrate living in a free country. They should read again the preamble to their own 235 year old Declaration of Independence especially the line…
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destrucetive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.
Happy Canada Day. To those over 40 a happy Dominion Day, and to our southerly neighbours a Happy July 4th. May we all celebrate many more.
(Originally broadcast on Just Right #206, June 30, 2011.)
There are wide cultural differences in the attitudes towards pornography. Main-stream videos from Europe, South America and Asia treat sex completely different than we here in North America. To most of the world sex and the depiction of sex in popular culture and art is commonplace and acceptable. Pornography is not an issue for most of the world. In fact, I believe that pornography is not an issue for much of us here in London or Canada. Anti-pornography however is an issue.
It seems that whenever thousands of consenting adults gather at the London Sex Show or similar events across this country there are a few mal-contents who object to the choices others make and try to control them through by-laws or legislation designed to bring their sexual appetites more in line with the extremely small minority of people who consider sex and its depiction as somehow immoral.
When hundreds of millions of people from all walks of life purchase and view porn every second of every day there always seems to be that one person who considers what vast numbers of people are doing in the privacy of their homes distasteful to the point that they feel the need to publically try to humiliate them and legislatively stop them.
Buying adult erotica or pornography is just fine if that is what you like. In fact if you view porn you are doing what people, both male and female have been doing since we learned how to draw on the walls of caves. In fact one of the oldest human artifacts known is a sculpture of a buxom naked woman.
The argument that pornography and the depiction of consenting nudity or sex are abnormal or immoral is simply wrong. It can be dismissed easily. But we are still left with the anti-pornographers and their agenda. So how are they going to push an agenda we know to be false? They have made up a lie. They tell us that porn leads to violence, that men who view porn are more likely to kill their wives and to rape strangers and run amok wreaking havoc on the streets.
These are of course patent lies. “But,” they say. “We have correlations and studies that show it to be true!” Well as we all know, a correlation does not necessarily demonstrate causality. The fact that literally billions of people, men and women, consume porn and the fact that we live in a relatively peaceful society should demonstrate the falseness of their claims.
The linking of violence with sex and pornography is the most insidious and yet obvious tool of the anti-pornographers. While it is true that there are genres of pornography that involve themes such as bondage or rough sex the fact that the acts are consensual should remove any notion that violence is involved at all.
The same distinction between consenting violence and consensual physical force can be seen in a karate dojo. Few people find the blood and gore of a boxing match objectionable because they know that the participants are adults acting consensually. Why then when consenting adults participate in pornography, most of which does not offer more physical force than say an enthusiastic slap on the behind, do these anti-pornographers claim that violence is involved?
The answer is that it suits their goals to equate sex with violence. It suits their argument to falsely suggest that the women in the pornographic industry are being abused or are being mistreated when the opposite is true.
There are a few people in the anti-pornography coffee clutch (I won’t call it a movement since a coffee clutch is more appropriate to their numbers) who are writing books and trying to dominate the discussion and who hold conventions on the subject for their own personal goals. They are trying to sell books. They are trying to drum up business. They are asking governments for millions of dollars to be spent so they, as expert anti-pornographers, can become highly paid consultants to school boards, and abused women clinics, and various levels of government. They are in it for themselves.
They can’t be in it for women because the anti-pornographers are actually doing more harm to women than good. One of the bromides they usually spout is that ‘pornography objectifies women for the sexual pleasure of men’ well when the anti-pornographers get up on their soap boxes and tell women to cover up and stop degrading themselves how do you think these women should feel? They are trying to shame them. They are trying to tell them that sex is bad and that their natural tendency to show off their good looks is evil and will cause men to kill and rape. What this warped sense of life does to the minds of some young girls who might actually listen to them can only be damaging.
If there is absolutely no erotica tolerable to the anti-pornographers the natural conclusion to anti-pornography is the clothing of women in burkas. Perhaps this is why when asked why they have not become critics of Islam and the way countries like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan treat their women they change the topic. It is precisely because the consequence of their anti-pornography campaign is the subjugation of women.
They wish to control one half of the population by telling them that consuming porn turns them into rapists and killers and they wish to control the other half of the population by telling them that they should cover up their bodies lest they tempt the other half of the population to rape and kill.
If we continue to give credence to these people we are aiding in their objectification of women and in the objectification of men. Women will be objectified as sluts and men will be objectified as potential rapists.
It would be easy for anyone to say that anti-pornographers are prudes or are perhaps not good looking but not only is this a cheap shot it also probably incorrect. No, the anti-pornographers have a low sense of life and an unnatural view on the sexual appetites of their neighbours. They fail to see what most of the world understands, that consensual sex is good and healthy and that the depiction of nudity and sex is good and healthy and happily enjoyed by millions. The only reason television, radio stations and newspapers ask for the opinion of these anti-pornographers is that the media know this one thing…the public loves a good freak show.
(Originally broadcast on Just Right #203, June 9, 2011.)
Dutch Parliamentarian, Geert Wilders appeared at an invitation only event in London, Ontario on May 8th. The event, sponsored by the International Free Press Society – Canada and the Canada Christian College was moderated by Sun News host Ezra Levant and also featured an interview by Mr. Levant of former Muslim, Sam Solomon.
I was fortunate to be invited to the event and allowed to record Mr. Wilders’ question and answer period. I present it here (see link below) in its entirety with the kind permission of the IFPS organizers.
Mr. Wilders has been an outspoken critic of not only what we in Canada have been calling Islamism but of Islam itself. He defines Islam as primarily an ideology not unlike fascism, communism or Nazism which must be combated before its adherents impose Sharia throughout the West. He is not opposed to Muslims per se as he defines a moderate Muslim as not a true follower of Islam. In doing so he makes the same distinction as do real followers of Islam. Those who wish to impose Sharia throughout the world label moderate Muslims as apostates.
Mr. Wilders has called on the banning of the Koran in the Netherlands but only as a result of his country’s laws which have banned Hitler’s Mein Kampf which Wilders describes as being far worse than the Koran in its racism and incitement to violence. His call for the banning of the Koran is meant as a way of pointing out the hypocrisy of the law makers in the Netherlands.
Amongst other measures to resist the Islamification of the West he is calling for a cessation of all immigration from Muslim countries, the closing of Islamic schools, the banning of the burqa and banning the construction of new mosques. He would see the expulsion of radical Imams and those who would commit violence to advance Sharia. Above all of these measures he calls on the West to allow for a free discussion on the issue of Islamification. To highlight this point Mr. Wilders had several body guards around him at all times and attendees had to pass through a checkpoint of four security agents. London police cruisers were stationed in the parking lot. The event in London was peaceful and went off without incident. It remains to be seen how the upcoming events in Toronto, Ottawa and Nashville fare.
The recent trial of Torontonian David Chen and two of his employees at the Lucky Moose market has sparked a debate about the limit on the use of force to protect your property.
To briefly summarize the case a man by the name of Anthony Bennett had stolen some plants from Mr. Chen’s market but was identified by Chen on surveillance video. About an hour after the theft Bennett returned to the market and was seen by Chen and his employees. Chen asked Bennett to pay for the plants he had stolen but Bennett refused and ran. Chen and the employees gave chase, subdued Bennett, bound his hands and feet and put him in a van to bring him back to the market where they would call police and have Bennett arrested for the theft.
On-lookers, not knowing about the theft thought that Bennett was being kidnapped. They called the police who arrested not only Bennett but Chen and his employees. Chen and company were charged with kidnapping, assault and forcible confinement. The charge of kidnapping was dropped and they were found not guilty on the other two charges.
The prosecutor described the situation this way; “Of course shopkeepers are entitled to protect their property…but that’s not what happened in this case. [Mr. Chen] seized a person off the streets of this city, tied him up and threw him into the back of a van.”
It would appear to the prosecutor that only the police can seize a person off the streets, tie him up and throw him into the back of their van, all nice and legal and proper.
Where do the police get their authority to seize people off the streets and lock them up? They get that authority from the people, like Mr. Chen, who have consented to be governed by laws and to have the police and the government act as their agents to arrest criminals and protect their property. If the police are not immediately available then individuals are well within their rights to protect their property.
The source of a proper government’s authority is rarely identified in this country. It is an agent of the people and as such in incapable of exercising any rights which the people do not have. Examples: a shopkeeper does not have the right to kill a thief and therefore neither does the state. A person has the right to use whatever force is necessary to protect his life and property but no more than is necessary, and therefore the police are not permitted to use excessive force either. A person has no right to steal from a fellow citizen and therefore neither does the state.
The United States is more familiar with this notion than Canadians as the preamble to their Declaration of Independence contains the phrase: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This is the true meaning of the word “democracy.” The power of the government and the police is derived from the power of the individual citizens whom they serve.
In July of this year a Rasmussen survey found that only 23% of Americans believe that the federal government has the consent of the government, 62% said No and 15% were unsure. If the survey were to be held here in Canada I wonder how many of us would even know what the phrase “consent of the governed” means.
(Originally broadcast on Just Right November 4th 2010. (Show #176) )