The Government Owns Your Body

...at least according to The Supreme Court of Canada.

Most at the CBC seem quite happy with this decision - that a 14-year-old-girl's rights were not violated when she was given a forcible blood transfusion against her wishes.

Read that again.

To me, this is one of the most horrifying decisions any court has ever made. The Court has said, essentially, that this girl did not own and control her body. Not even her parents owned and controlled her body. The Manitoba Child and Family Services department did.

For the record, I abhor the idiotic, superstitious nonsense that is religion and what it does to people. But so long as no one is harmed by this choice except the person making the choice or others that consent, then, yes, one is free to believe any mythological baloney they want.

Sometimes being free means letting people make choices that are not those we would make, or even choices that are wrong, or choices that are based on idiotic beliefs.

That girl was not being beaten, not being starved or otherwise abused against her will. She made the choice knowing the probable consequences. And no one but her would pay those consequences.

Ask yourself this - would you want some fundamentalist Christian sect or Muslim sect that somehow attained power to have this same power over your children, the power to invade their physical bodies against your wishes and theirs?

"Saving lives" is the same excuse used by the Chinese government to harvest the organs of Falun Gong prisoners. After all, if it means saving a life - especially the life of a child - why shouldn't the state be able to invade your body against your will?

It is the excuse the fetus fetishists use to try to take away a woman's right to choose or control her body as well.

That is exactly what this decision says - given a good enough reason (decided by them, of course) the state has the right to violate the bodily integrity of someone against their will, or against the will of their parents or legal guardians.

That is horrifying.

Don't let our natural instinct to help a child open us to giving the state the power to control our bodies. That is far worse than one 14-year-old girl making a bad or stupid choice and dying.

Remember kids....

...when there is the possibility that Google might accidentally put someone's picture on the internet, its a horrendous crime and violation of privacy that warrants CPC MP Pierre Poilievre's careful attention and action on behalf of a constituent*.

But when its the same government which Poilievre's party forms and he is a junior Minister in decides to give the police the power to spy on its own citizens without warrant and without probable cause, well that's just fine.

Or to randomly pull-over and search people, under the guise of "road-side breath tests".

'Cuz that's different, right?

The Conservative Party of Canada - police state fascists who seem to like ignoring the Charter and the law.

*Irony Alert!

Good ole Pierre, so worried about his constituent's privacy that he would berate the head of Google in a committee decides to call the constituent by name and have it published in a national newspaper. So what might have been an otherwise been an anonymous picture, now has a name and location attached to it.

Now who violated Mr. White's privacy more, the Google Truck or the smarmy Pierre Poilievre, looking again for cheap attention?

Way to go Pierre.

Of course this is provided this fantastical story is, in fact, true and that Mr. white isn't a member of the Nepean-Carleton Conservative Riding Association....

Barack Obama - Liar and Fraud

I always knew I would strongly disagree with Obama on economics. He is, after all, a Keynesian spender and will, like Bush before him, lead the US down to economic collapse with his nonsense ideas about "stimulus packages" and his warmed over socialism with his nonsense "bailout" plans for big auto and big banks, corporate welfare queens who should have gone out of business long ago.

At least he would stop the wars and pull the US back from despotism and restore rule of law and respect for human and US constitutional rights, right?

Nope.

Obama has decided not to release the torture photos and to continue the cover-up of the crimes of the last administration.

He is keeping US troops in Iraq until 2011, instead of the 6-9 months he stated during the campaign.

He is increasing the presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and best estimates think they will be there for at least 10 more years.

He is refusing to prosecute the war criminals in the last administration, from the actually torturers all the way up to Cheney and Bush. They all get a pass.

He has decided to continue with the Military Tribunals in Gitmo - kangaroo courts that violate nearly every rule of justice and evidence that the West and the Common law has evolved since 1215.

What has Obama delivered but more and bigger deficits than Bush and has either covered up or continued Bush's crimes around the world.

You can call that a lot of things, but it ain't even close to being "Change".

Right now, the only difference between Bush and Obama is that the latter is smarter and able to fool a lot more people while doing exactly what the former did.

Barack Obama - Bush lite.

First Principles

For those who ask 'why?'

Its nice to be reminded in an elegant way why some of us are so adamant in our quest for liberty.

Yes, it really is this simple.

Cynics R Us

What Sheldon Richman said.

I think the Progressives blogsphere needs some intelligent dissent from the fawning today. Not some drooling, backhanded, knee-jerk crap from moron's like Rush Limbaugh or Michelle Malkin (Google it, they will get no links from me), but a more nuanced dissent.

FWIW, Richman preferred Obama.

Pro-Choice IS Pro-Life

We have all heard the stories. They come mostly from China, but also from India. Forced abortions because of a government law on family sizes, the harvesting of organs from Falun Gong political prisoners for sale on the black market of for use by other deemed more worthy. Poor people willingly selling their children and organs in order to survive.

This is the stuff of horror films, urban legends and all-too-real totalitarian crimes against humanity. What repulses us is the ideas that someone - anyone - could invade our body, against our will or via coercion and remove parts or treat us like we are their property. It is anethma to the idea of being human and a fundamental human right that each person has total and exclusive control over their own bodily integrity. So disgusted are we, as a society, by this that when it comes to organ donation, we have allowed the individual to decide whether to donate, even if it would clearly and most certainly save the life of another. In this context we have already concluded that the principle of personal bodily integrity and control is more important than the life of another person.

That is, it is an essential element of our humanness that we own and control our own bodies. To allow others to do so is to render us to a less-than-human life as an incubator, spare parts repository or automaton to be controlled. It is slavery and it is not life.

The anti-abortionists, while claiming to be pro-life, are on the same side as the Chinese Communists who harvest kidneys and livers from Falun Gong prisoners. They have decided that their idea of 'life' is more important than the individuals lives involved and that they should be allowed to use all the powers of the state to invade and control another person's body.

They will do so even if they must lie and mislead. They try to shock with pictures of late term abortions, even though 92% of all abortions in Canada occur before 12 weeks and 98% occur before 16 weeks and abortions past 20 weeks almost never occur - even Dr. Henry Morgantaler won't perform them. They imply women who are 9 months pregnant are having abortions, when that is not the case.

They anti-abortionists are not about 'life' but about control, like any rapist or serial killer. They want to control your body and your actions and force you to adhere to their morality and to be a slave to their ideals. They want to use and mold you rather than let you live.

Merely being born is not 'life' if one cannot control one's own body and make decisions about your bodily integrity. That is dehumanizing slavery and oppression. It is the very stuff of 'The Black Book of Communism' and the driving force of the Holocaust.

That is the real legacy of that decision in R. vs Morgantaler 20 years ago today - that a person's bodily integrity is paramount - that only that person may control their own body and no one else. It has farther reaching applications than simply abortions. It is our legal bulwark against all actions that would allow others to invade our bodies, that would have others see us as property or other things less than human.

It is our defense against the horrendous, authoritarian and totalitarian ideals that would enslave us.

Remember that. Pro-Choice then is really Pro-Life. Pro human life rather than existence.

As has been said, Pro-Choice people want to control their own bodies, anti-abortionists want to control everyone else's.

Even if I find abortion personally repugnant, I know whose side I am on.

Listen Again and be Moved

The time is now....let freedom ring.

Hat tip to Ronald Bailey and Reason TV.

Ezra Levant is No Hero, Even if You Agree with Him

Update Below

I do not agree with Human Rights Commissions, Hate Crime laws or other such tribunals.

I think they are too easily misused to quash freedom and liberty and can be counter-productive to their stated claim. Like prohibiting anything, prohibiting or punishing certain speech or publication does not stop such speech, but drives it underground. I would rather have them out in the open, so I know who my enemies are. Any government power that can be used against "the bad guys" can easily be used against "the good guys" given the right circumstances.

And I don't trust the government.

So that means that I begrudgingly side with Ezra Levant on principle. He should have the right to publish or say anything he wants, so long as it does not cause harm to anyone else. He should not have to answer to anyone not directly involved, let alone a government commission, no matter how minor or seemingly friendly. If his words incite violence, or are untrue, he should be sued and impoverished. Those that oppose his bigoted views should take him on head on, with more speech, louder speech and ridicule him into oblivion. Boycott his work, his publications or any publication or media outlet that employs him. Hit him where it hurts, in his wallet.

Defending free speech requires more speech, not less.

Despite that, Levant is no hero for free speech. He is, in my opinion*, merely an opportunist, looking for any public platform to spout his anti-Muslim garbage. And the Alberta Human Rights And Citizenship Commission has given him such a platform.

Remember how all this came about. In the middle of Canada's conservative heartland, Alberta, Levant couldn't successfully run a conservative political magazine. In an effort to boost sales, he pulled the Mohammed cartoon stunt. The cartoons, which were easy to find on the internet, were long past being news until Levant whipped up the fury again. Even with that and nuzzling up to the government teat, Levant couldn't keep his magazine going, after some private businesses such as Chapters-Indigo chose to stop carrying his magazine, especially the issue in question.

In other words, it was a stunt to try to make Levant money. And it backfired.

But then Syed Soharwardy handed Levant a gift - he made a HRC complaint.

Now, Levant could have merely answered by sending a registered letter. He was not compelled to appear the other day, he chose to. He could have left it at that and it is very likely the AHRC would have dropped the complaint (as they do with most) because it has no merits.

But he didn't. Instead he video taped it, posted it on Youtube, all after inciting his martyrdom on his blog for days before the event. He is even begging for donations from his followers for something that has yet to cost him anything besides the time he chose to take. He is begging for donations for a case that is not likely to succeed and not likely to actually cost him money. He is promoting himself as a saviour of "free speech" but "call now with your donation, before its too late!" Benny Hinn would be proud.

In other words, it is a stunt to make Levant money.

Every conservative who is donating money and supporting this is doing nothing more than wasting their money and aiding anti-Muslim bigotry.

Of course, from my perspective, all of this was a predictable result of the very existence of the HRC. Indeed, such things were predicted in 1644 by John Milton in Areopagitica. One of the main thrusts of Milton's argument is that by persecuting free speech and freedom of the press, the state gives credibility and credence to positions that would not otherwise merit it. If the government is so worried that it needs to silence an opponent, then they must have something worth listening to. Likewise, he argued, persecutions give those being persecuted a state sanctioned platform for their views, thus causing them, again, to get more credibility than they deserve and to be spread farther then they otherwise would.

Certainly, that is the case here. Levant has used the HRC as a platform to attack Islam in general and Soharwardy in particular. Merely peruse the comments at his blog or at the Shotgun (neither of which will get a link from me - use Google if you must) to see the depths of anti-Muslim hatred he has stirred because of this. He is even getting support from some who would not associate with such opinions under normal circumstances. And of course, this failed Conservative politician and failed publisher is now in the centre of the spotlight again, his face on camera, spouting his nonsense.

Its like giving the madman on the corner a megaphone and a 3 piece suit instead of ignoring him.

Ezra Levant is a lot of things, but, in my opinion*, he is not a hero for free speech.

*Update:

It appears, if you read Mike Brock's comments in the comments section below, that I had not sufficiently clarified that thinking Ezra was an anti-Muslim bigot was my opinion (for the reasons I give in the comments, as well as those by Dr. Dawg) and not a "statement of fact". In an effort to avoid confusion for Mike and others that may read this, I have updated this post to make it clear that it is my opinion. After all, it seems Ezra, the king of free speech, is in a suing mood and I really want to keep my house.

Ode to Geddy Lee: Against Mandatory Voting

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"
- Rush 'Free Will'

With that one simple line, Canadian rock group Rush has summed in total, the arguments against mandatory voting.

The belief seems to be that if we force people to choose, then government will truly be democratic and representative of the will of the people - all the people, since they vote. Further, it will prevent disenfranchisement, as the 'Jim Crow' laws of the 50's and 60's.

Brilliant, if only the root cause of 'not voting' were merely being too lazy to show up to cast a ballot or being kept away by the Klan. But such is not the case in modern Canada. During the last few elections voter turnout has dropped to the between high 50 to low 60s after traditionally being around 70%. The rates are higher the younger the person is. What this shows is not laziness on the part of the electorate, but rather disillusionment with the choices or the system in general.

If there are no real choices, is being forced to choose really free? The Soviet Union had 100% voter turnout regularly, but that did not mean their system was free. There is precious difference between being forced to choose from a field of one and being forced to choose from a field of two or three or even 4 if there is no real difference between them, or if there is no choice that represents your views.

And that gets to the heart of the matter - voter turnout is not only provided a measure of legitimacy for the government and the state, but it indicates the health and legitimacy of the system itself. Thus, in a truly free society, it is a legitimate political stance to choose not to participate in a system one feels is illegitimate or no longer represents that person's wishes and beliefs. It is Tommy Douglas' 'Mouseland" taken to its logical extreme - rather than merely being forced to vote for the white cats or black cats, or choosing other mice, some may choose to forgo the system altogether and strike out on their own.

So, if it is wrong and contrary to the ideas of freedom and liberty to, by force and coercion, prevent someone from exercising their franchise as the Jim Crow laws did, it is equally contrary to those principles to force people to exercise that franchise if the choose not to.

There are many perfectly legitimate reasons for not voting:

1. No choice - all of the running candidates either do not differ to offer real choice, or none provide a platform that matches the voter's preference. This could be for one election or all of them.

2. Choice - the person has decided that they do not wish to lend legitimacy to a system they no longer support. This could range from simply not supporting an unfair "first-past-the-post" voting system all the way to those who do not see the state, non-consensual government and non-voluntary laws as illegitimate and do not wish to enable and empower the current system (ahem...).

3. Just don't want to - for whatever reason, a person is simply not engaged and does not wish to, for whatever reason.

The result of mandatory voting will not be, then, more legitimacy, but less. As in the Soviet Union, it will create a false legitimacy, because no dissent will be accepted and people will be forced to vote for people and positions they do not truly believe in. Or worse, force legitimization from an ignorant, uninformed and disengaged electorate.


Mandatory voting and forced enfranchisement is as draconian and against the idea of freedom as race-based Jim Crow forced disenfranchisement and should fought just as hard. Mandatory voting is the moral and logical equivalent of 'freeping' an election.


To see the other side, check out this debate at The Great Canadian Debate on Mandatory Voting where I match up with Dr. Dawg.

To comment, please drop by the debate forum.

My Philosophy

A while back, I was asked "Why?" by many friends in the blogging world who were curious as to the changes I made.

This is my answer. (By Ken Schooland.)

These are the first principles from which my political stances emanate. It is neither "left" nor "right". It is about freedom and liberty - true freedom and liberty.

Any questions?

Update:

This from Catfarmer pretty much says it all too, and far more eloquently than I could.

Keep the questions coming.

Psychols Speaks...

...you listen.

One of the most insightful posts I have ever read.

They Hate Us for Our Freedom

In a rare, but not unprecedented, unanimous 9-0 judgment earlier today, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the security certificate sections of Canada's anti-terrorism laws. The Court said that these certificates violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Every judge, man or woman, left or right, Liberal appointed or Conservative appointed, agreed.

Not surprisingly, the Court has essentially ruled that it is unconstitutional for the state to hold a person indefinitely, without charge or trial or being able to see the evidence against them. For those of us that value freedom and liberty, this is absolutely obvious. Those kinds of powers are usually exercised by totalitarian, fascist and dictatorial states like Cuba, the former Soviet Union, South Africa under apartheid, Saddam's Iraq and Pinochet's Chile to name but a few. Canada is not, nor should not be in this league.

The Court, in essence, has balanced the real danger of terrorism versus cost to our civil liberties of these draconian measures and civil liberties rightly won.

Let's put the "problem" into perspective:

In 2004, according to the US State Department, approximately 2000 people were killed world wide from acts of terrorism. In the past 20 years, about 5000 Western civillians have died "due to jihadist and Arab insurgent violence", including Lockerie, Bali, Madrid, London and 9-11.

Canada hasn't had a terrorist attack since 1985, when Air India was bombed. Last year, the "Toronto 17" were apprehended while possibly planning an attack (though the real threat may have been exaggerated and the 17 may have been coaxed into action by the government's own mole) without resorting to extraordinary police powers or judicial measures.

According to Michael Rothschild, a former business professor at the University of Wisconsin, your odds of being killed in a plausible terrorist attack in your lifetime are 1 in 1282:

Even if terrorists were able to pull off one attack per year on the scale of the 9/11 atrocity, that would mean your one-year risk would be one in 100,000 and your lifetime risk would be about one in 1300. (300,000,000 ÷ 3,000 = 100,000 ÷ 78 years = 1282) In other words, your risk of dying in a plausible terrorist attack is much lower than your risk of dying in a car accident, by walking across the street, by drowning, in a fire, by falling, or by being murdered.

Further, prescription drugs are 16,400% more dangerous than terrorism.

So in response to this minuscule danger, the government decided to allow the state to arbitrarily detain people without charge or trial indefinitely while not allowing them to see or challenge the evidence against them. Today the Supreme Court said "Not so much."

Now given this logic and the clearly totalitarian nature of the law, one would expect that most people who value freedom and liberty would be overjoyed at this development. Sadly, this isn't so. As Canadian Cynic points out, some are quite devastated by this:

• Socialist Gulag: "For the second time in a week the Liberal elites in this country provided aid & comfort to those who wish us harm all in the interest of maintaining slavish devotion to that damn charter."


• Civitatensis: "Friends of Osama?"


• Canadian Blue Lemons: "Who will rid us of these pestilent priests and protectors of the enemies of our society?"


• Dr. Roy: " Canadians are less safe today thanks to the fiberals and the fiberal supreme court."


• mesopotamia west: "Court in Bed with Terrorism."

There are others. I am amazed that people still think that security certificates and indeed the other sections of the anti-terrorism act are necessary considering the (lack of) magnitude of the problem.

Are these people really so scared by the remote possibility of dying in a terrorist attack that they would gladly give the state - hell anybody - the power to throw them in a tiny prison, essentially forever?

Are they truly that cowardly?

I almost wish they were. I believe with these people it is something deeper and more sinister. As the Vanity Press discussed yesterday, I think it occurs because these people are projecting their own hatred of our freedoms outwards. They want to do exactly what they say the jihadis what to do - take away our liberty and impose their moral view on everyone, to use the full force of the state to make society in their narrow image of reality. How else can one explain people that on one hand, do not want the government to have the power to force someone to do their job when it comes to marrying gay couples, but are more than happy to grant that same state the power to detain and imprison people indefinitely without charge or trial, on the other hand? They agree with what they say the jihadis believe - that we are corrupt, morally bankrupt, promiscuous and on the verge of collapse. They propagate these things despite all evidence to the contrary, as demonstrated here and at the Vanity Press.

Read just some of those posts above. They see enemies everywhere, in society, in different religions and even in other political parties. They want the power the state wields over all of us, in order to be able to change us to their liking, by force if needed. They abhor the idea that people can be different from them, live different from them and even think they are wrong. The Supreme Court saying 'no' to that power is what angers them, not the thought that the terrorists are under every bed. They abhor us being free, acting as we like. Each one of them want to be rid of the Charter in order to force upon us some fix for some perceived moral outrage in society - abortion, gay marriage, women's rights, non-white immigration or the lack of Christianity in our institutions as examples.

My liberty, freedom and way of life is not threatened by religious zealots on the other side of the world, who may hate us because of bad Western foreign policy decisions over the last 50 years, it is threatened by these people. They are here, right now fighting hard to get the power of the state to do to us exactly what they claim to fear from the terrorists. They are a far greater threat than terrorists will ever be. They are the terrorists best friends.

They hate us for our freedom.