Morbid Obtusity

February 23, 2010

Once upon a time, in the dear old days of yore, everything depended on logic. Why is something true? Because A cannot at the same time be B – no matter how hard someone wishes it could be, nor how much window dressing you put on it.

Good ol’ Aristotle (no, not Jackie Kennedy’s second husband) said it way back when: A is A. Never, ever B, or Q, or J. Farnsworth Hornswoggle the Third, or protection of the “multi-culti” racket.

Well, racket is the new real, friends.

Which brings us to our own beloved Queen B – er, Queen’s Counsel, the Jenster, and the one talent she actually does possess  – mastery of turning A into B, which requires real work (paid for with YOUR tax dollars!), most notably convincing suckers – er, persuading the Canadian public – that in order to protect your rights, we must destroy them.

The girl wields language like a master swordsman, only her instrument is the wet spaghetti noodle of intentional vagueness. Everything she says defies logic and reality, yes – but in such a way that it SOUNDS logical and rational. Every con man knows it’s not what it is, it’s how you say it. (Flashback to Bill Clinton: “It depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”)

Business as usual in today’s climate of moral relativism. Everybody, especially in government, does it, right? But in this oozing firmament, Jen’s a semantic star. Who else do you know who can say THIS in the same unblushing breath [emphasis mine]:

Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in Canada. As all of you will know it is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Because no right is absolute, the modern concept of rights is that of a matrix with different rights and freedoms mutually reinforcing each other to build a strong and durable human rights system.”

Geddit? Throw together A and B together, and they come out A! B never existed except how WE define it! We have never been at war with Eurasia! … *misty-eyed sigh*…  Masterful.

How do you think Jen rose to the top of the “human rights” racket? And don’t you think, power-wise, that racket is the best place to be?

I took some time to read the CHRC’s updated “Policy on the Application of Section 13.” Why? Because this is my girl’s magnum opus.

(Mysteriously, it’s dated March 2, 2010. Since, as I write this, today is February 23, 2010, it shows that not only can Jen manipulate language, but time, too. BOW before your Overlord!)

Now, yer average Joe, looking at this document, will see that no less than Parliament OK’s it. Why? Because it’s founded on Supreme Court case law! (Stupid proles!) If the Supremes and the court sez it, it’z troo.

Ah … but WHY is it troo, and not true? Because the Mistress of Murk said so. Back to that in a minute. First, we need to revisit another bloke who, along with Aristotle, helped define logical reality, thus setting the framework for modern civilization and all its accomplishments.

Ever heard of Occam’s Razor? Back in the 1400s, William of Ockham said “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.” That is, simplest is best. Using this “razor,” we need to “shave” everything down to its basic essentials in order to understand it properly.

Jen pays lip service to Billy Bare Bones when she bandies stuff like “fundamental rights” about – and then spits in his face with the “matrix of rights” drivel. A single “fundamental” cannot also be a “matrix.” Which is true. But Jen says it CAN. Which is troo. See what I mean?

Ezra Levant put Jen’s speechy slime firmly in the nutshell it belongs in (and who would know better than him!):

“I would like to point out something superlative in Lynch’s speech: she has taken Orwellian inversions to a level that I have not seen before. She’s simply the best at what Orwell called newspeak and doublethink.

Every flaw and error in her own conduct and that of her CHRC henchmen, she attributes to her opponents. Every vicious tactic she uses herself as a matter of course, she blames on her victims.

It is classic Orwellian behaviour, and it shows Lynch is better suited to working in Iran than in Canada.”

(Ouchy-wow! No wonder you made it to her Nixon list, Ezra; believe me, I’m green with envy.)

Now, if you’re still with me, here, I’d like to point out that Jen, while undeniably the Queen of Quibble, didn’t just develop her incredible talent in a vacuum – she had help in high places.

Namely, the aforementioned Parliament and Supreme Court.

Everybody knows that it takes a bunch of like-minded people to get the upper hand in government. You know, the conservative crowd (less government is best – hey, Billy!) versus the government-is-best crowd (by whatever name they call themselves; Labour, Democrat, “progressive,” yawn, zzz …).

Once you have the upper hand, you can make people do things. Just smith the words, and then get yer sympathetic toadies (oops! friends!) in the mass media to Xerox ‘em out to the rubes. Jen’s friends in Parliament and the Supreme Court share her vision of total control and, like her, know how to put it in the right words and feed it onto the media conveyor belt so the suckers –er, Canadian public – swallow it.

Consider this:

The aforementioned Canadian Human Rights Commission Policy Statement relies on a SINGLE CASE to justify every last sleazy thing done in the name of “anti-hate discrimination.” Just one: Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892.

Disclosure: I’m not a lawyer. However, I AM a citizen, with brain cells. ONE case to support a WHOLE LOT of misery inflicted on people simply speaking their minds? Hello, Rev. Stephen Boissoin?

Okay, so this must have been a helluva case, supported by everyone on the bench, in a clear case of moral mandate for the good of the Canadian people. Right?

Wrong:

“In 1990 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Taylor case that Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was constitutional, but by the slimmest of margins, with a 4-3 split decision.  To date, this has been the only constitutional test of Section 13 to ever reach the Supreme Court. It should be noted that Madame Justice McLachlin delivered the dissenting opinion, saying that Section 13 was a violation of freedom of speech and should be wiped from our law books.” [emphasis mine]

One case. Well, so WHAT if it’s a slender thread? In the reality racket, that’s all you need.

Repeat after me: There IS no right. There IS no wrong. There was NO dissent in Taylor, and if there was, it is meaningless now, no matter what they said. Therefore, we ALL AGREE that the right to speak your mind is MEANINGLESS. At all costs, NO ONE MUST BE OFFENDED.*

(*Except when we need them to be offended, to keep our cushy public job going.)

So, brush aside all those hundreds of thousands of dollars in punitive fees to defend yourself, damage to reputations, protection of the right to infect people at fast-food restaurants with terrible diseases, fear of saying ANYTHING that might come back to bite you.

“Hatred” is no more. Pain is delight. Freedom is slavery. You stupid proles!

Jen, George Orwell – and Abraham Lincoln! — are proud of you. You’ve fooled most of the people most of the time. Up is now down. You rock.*

*(that is, you crawled out from under one. Enjoy yer 15 minutes while you got ‘em.)


The elephant in the living room

November 13, 2009

An open question to all:

Anyone besides me have a problem with:

1) Someone speaking their mind;

2) Someone speaking their mind with religious conviction;

3) Someone speaking their mind with religious conviction in a country that purportedly protects their speech;

???

Anyone?

The Rev. Stephen Boissoin believes that homosexuality is wrong, and quotes Biblical texts to support his belief.

This ~criminal~ … why?

Well, for starters, forces have been busily at work in modern culture to paint homosexuals as somehow wrongly vilified, due to  discoveries in modern science that show genetics play a large role in sexual orientation.

Fine. I buy it. I’ve actually followed the science, and it’s pretty much sound. Dedicated homosexuals are made that way.

Religious arguments will rage, and they should. We can have no better view of our own humanity than that which emerges after science and scripture meet.

But.

Does that mean the Rev. Boissoin CAN’T EXERCISE HIS SPEECH … ?

And:

Does that mean that some gay parade marcher offending parents of small children with his/her “outfit” (or lack thereof) can’t exercise his/hers?

Just askin’.


Support Ezra Wednesday

July 27, 2009

Mark Steyn will be hosting a fundraiser Wednesday for Ezra Levant’s latest defense against idiocy.

Please contribute, if at all possible. Remember, Ezra’s on the front lines representing all of us.

As Mark quotes Ezra himself: To battle stations!


Keep up the momentum!

July 27, 2009

As has been said here and elsewhere — (I especially like Don Sharpe’s analogy of whack-a-mole) — the CHRC is dodging and twisting to stay under the radar.

We say, no mercy — no quarter — no comfort zone.

Here’s a list of all Canadian MPs, by constituency. If you click on any of them, you’ll find a link to their e-mail addresses.

Drop a line to as many as you want. ALL would be great. Me, I’ve been working my way through the Conservatives first (who have been a bunch of wusses up till now) and then the other parties. So what if I’m a Yank? Pressure is pressure. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. These people — elected SERVANTS of the PUBLIC — need to know the eyes of their voters are on them (and the eyes of those of us south of the border who will, in turn, have our eyes on those of OUR elected officials who support their Canadian counterparts).

So, let’s not rest for a minute. Tell your MPs exactly what you think about Ezra’s latest lawsuit, or “human rights” tribunals in general. Trust me — they’ll take note. It’s like the Chinese water torture. Eventually, they’ll have to act to stop it.


A site worth visiting

July 3, 2009

Just now happened onto the Canadian Association for Free Expression site. Great stuff.

Click on the link for CHRC Case Summaries. Interesting reading, to be sure.

I know it’s been said many times already, but notice the ham hand of Richard Warman all over most of the cases.

It truly shocks me that an entire country’s bureaucracy is basically influenced by two people: Lynch and Warman. And that so many people’s lives are devastated by these two. Basically, just these two individuals.

I’m an American, and can’t presume to “lecture” Canada on “what it ought to do.” (I do plenty of that here at home, *grin*)

But I do wonder what must be going on in Stephen Harper’s mind to let this stuff go on.


Happy Canada Day!

July 1, 2009

To all my Canadian friends (and relatives!), warm wishes on Canada Day. Rest assured many of us neighbors want to help keep Canada free in every sense.

Which, apparently, the Canadian Arab Federation doesn’t think should happen. (via Blazing Cat Fur, who credits Tarek Fatah for the find)

Stay strong, Canada, and God bless.


‘Speech is Tyranny!’

July 1, 2009

Blogger Ken at Popehat pens a super essay on why censorship is a no-no:

“Let’s be clear — the right to free speech is the right to express oneself without state retaliation. It is not a right to speak without social retaliation. Speech has consequences. Among those consequences are condemnation, vituperation, scorn, ridicule, and pariah status. Those consequences represent other people exercising their free speech rights. That’s a feature of the marketplace of ideas, not a bug.” (emphasis mine)

You said it, Br’er.

Our own Queen of Clowns appears on Ken’s, ahem, list of infamous crushers of dissent, where she is royally skewered for inventing “reverse chill.”

Read the whole thing; it’s excellent.