Politicians and Whores (Is There A Difference?)

Here is my take on the budget deal between Layton's NDP and the Liberals.

Just as long as NDP leader Layton is able to get his way, he is prepared to lie in bed with the Liberals. And why should that be surprising? After all, an NDPer is just a Liberal in a little bigger hurry and with a slightly more loony agenda [Remember Alexa McDonough and "Everyone earning $60,000 per year is rich and should be taxed to death" (this is not a direct quote) - whoops! - that applies to most union bosses and many union staff].

Besides, the NDP is as much a pig as the Liberal and other parties are at the election reimbursements trough, all trying to grab as much taxpayers' money as possible for inflated election expenses. It obviously doesn't matter to the NDP that Layton and the NDP are, as a result of that deal, helping to support and condone the scandalous behaviour of the Liberal Party of Canada involving the rip-off of many millions of dollars of taxpayers' hard-earned money.

The NDP wants to prevent tax cuts to corporations [where most of our retirement funds are being generated] and spend that money instead on the unions [where do you think most social services costs go?], or throw it down the drain for foreign aid and Kyoto.

Don't get me wrong. If foreign aid money was spent wisely and carefully, if that is possible, it would be a good thing, but most foreign aid is administered so incompetently and blindly that it mostly makes the corrupt politicians and their friends in other countries rich.

China, for example, is beating our pants off on trade, but we are still wasting money on foreign aid to China. If money were wisely spent on environmental matters, that would be OK, but implementing the Kyoto Accord, based on faulty pseudo-scientific notions, will only serve to bankrupt this country and make us all poorer without having any appreciable or meaningful effect on global warming.

Canada is suffering from an inbound direct investment shortage because corporations that might have invested here are going elsewhere where tax burdens and union wages are not so onerous. Goodbye jobs, goodbye economic development, unless the government does something to reduce its take.

The government has now brought down several budgets with enormous surpluses. What this means is that taxpayers, including the corporations, have been grossly over-taxed in the first place. We should all be getting this over-taxation surplus back. It was our money until it was hi-jacked by Ottawa. This is, if not outright theivery, at the very least, a breach of the trust we place in our elected governments. Tax cuts right now would not be a gift or corporate welfare, but a re-imbursement of money improperly taken.

An election right now could sweep the streets clean. Lets see if another government and another party will change things for the better.

British Adoption Of Anti-Democracy Laws

Britain does not have a written constitution or a Charter of Rights, the
Magna Carta notwithstanding. It also has a unitary government, although
some autonomy in some matters has been allowed to Scotland and possibly
to Wales. Unitary governments tend to be less democratic because of the
concentration of power in one locus.

Britain has also had a long-standing problem with Norther-Irish terrorism,
both in Northern-Ireland and on the main island. British civil liberties have
suffered in the past as a result of draconian measures adopted to deal with
terrorism. So it is not a far stretch from special laws to target terrorism to
special laws to target hooliganism, a problem which has plagued Britain for
several decades. Tony Blair's Labour government has created a new legal
monster which destroys civil liberties and which is difficult, if not impossible,
to contstrain.

A new law, introduced in 1999 and expanded in 2003, allows a local
government [municipalities] and police to obtain "anti-social behaviour
orders" [ ASBOs] against individuals on flimsy grounds without adequate
proof [hearsay can be resorted to] in respect of behaviour such as
displaying suicidal tendencies, failing to securely corral your farm animals,
carrying condoms if you are a prostitute, using the word "grass", throwing
rhubard or speaking sarcastically to neighbors. The law permits orders to
be made against anyone displaying anti-social behaviour "causing or likely
to cause harassment, alarm or distress."

The definition is so broadly worded that mere annoyances can be caught
by it. The definition of "distress" is such a subjective thing that it depends
on the alleged "victims's" perceptions and susceptibilities, not on some
reasonable and objective standard. In other words, it is a nightmare for
anyone who offends another persons sensibilities, because that seems to
be all it takes to have an order made against you.

Why is this such a dreadful attack on civil liberties? It is such because,
based on the making of such an order, should the person against whom
the order was made disobey it, a criminal charge can be prosecuted and
the accused is subject to up to 5 years imprisonment for merely
breaching the order.

In other words, it is possible for the municipal
authorities and the police to create a myriad of criminal offences,
customized to suit the occasion.

Our usual concept of criminal law is that the governing legislature
passes criminal laws affecting the entire nation after open and public
debate, publishes them, and then enforces them. This concept has been
thrown out the window. Criminal offences then become a matter of local
whim and prejudice.

This is, indeed, a characteristic of the arbitariness
of state and police treatment of people in dictatorships such as
Nazi-Germany, the Soviet Union, Iran, Myanmar, and a host of other
Muslim countries. It is also characteristic of the attitudes of
those who call themselves socialists, who are so certain of their
righteous correctness that they not only tolerate such laws, but
bring them into being.

Buying Kyoto Credits: I Don't Get It

In the April 10th, 2005, National Post Andrew Coyne claims "-it's how much emissions are reduced, not where." - and - "If it is cheaper for us to purchase credits from other nations than to make reductions at home, that is exactly what we should do...".

This makes absolutely no sense to me, particularly when one examines the examples, i.e., where the so-called credits can be purchased. One instance Coyne cited is from Russia. But the reason Russia has so-called credits to sell is that, due to the crash of Communism, and the collapse of many of its inefficient command economy factory enterprises, it is no longer capable of creating the same level of pollution as it once was. Paying Russia will not reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere. That is already happening, but not because of any enlightened policies or efforts on Russia's part. So, Canada's paying Russia will not reduce emissions. The same reasoning applies to many other less-developed countries whose economies neverwere nor are now capable of spewing emissions into the world atmosphere.

Is this stupid plan a thinly disguised foreign aid scheme? That is all it seems capable of doing. In any event, it will backfire in spades as far as its foolish ostensible purpose. Why? With the million, or perhaps billions of dollars, our dumb government may give them, they will become more capable of creating more industries which will then increase their total carbon emissions. What a scheme! The wordcockamamy comes to mind.

More on Canadian Liberal Attacks on Democracy

Another piece of stupid legislation is about to emerge from the colon of wisdom in Ottawa: a bill before a parliamentary committee promising to strengthen Canada's law against child pornography at the expense of education, art, literature and freedom of speech and expression.

If passed, the bill's provisions will censor and outlaw any educational, artistic or cultural description or depiction of children in the context of sexuality. Even books or articles written about sex education will be caught in the legal web created by such a law. No doubt the supporters of such an outrage will defend their handiwork by claiming that Canadian judges will prevent artists and writers from being criminalized for creating "legitimate" works [educational texts, works of literature, etc.].

The problem is that charges will be laid by ignorant police officers, often goaded by loony interest groups and "activists", based on the bill's expanded, loosely worded and highly subjective definitions of allegedly harmful material. This harrassment, involving costly legal
defences, will create a significant chill, itself preventing truly legitimate writers and artists from discussing or including reference to material that might be deemed by those police or interest groups to be pornography, whether or not the writers or artists might be eventually
acquitted of any offences charged.

As well, there is no reasonable guarantee that the courts will protect free speech and legitimate works, as illustrated by the subjectivity displayed by many judges and the willingness of those same judges to embrace the same hysteria evidenced by the very existence of theproposed law itself.

Alan Borovy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and a long time opponent of overweaning and unnecessary governmental attacks upon civil liberties, characterizes the problem created by the proposed law very nicely: "...the subject matter of
education, art, and literature cannot be appropriately confined to birds, flowers and cans of soup." Parliamentarians and those bureaucrats who dreamed up this new horror cannot seem to get it. Lets hope that exposing their crassness and stupidity to the light of criticism may help them get it.

Perhaps they are not part of a conspiracy to destroy democracy bit by bit. Perhaps they are just too stupid to know what they are doing. Given the eagerness with which politicians embrace corruption [note the latest mess exposed daily during the Gomery Inquiry], the latter is
likely closer to the truth.

More On What's Happening To Canadian Democracy?

Another short newspaper story from Quebec once again reminds me of the
constant assaults on democracy sponsored by the One Governing Party.

As of April 4th, 2005, the Quebec Court of Appeal has ruled that it is
illegal for Canadians to purchase U.S. television prgramming.
Naturally, the supporters of this outrage include the corporate
broadcasters and their Liberal cronies. And these a-- h---- cloak
themselves in double-talk and double-think by calling themselves the
Coalition Against Satellite Signal Theft. What unmitigated B.S. and gall!

According to such giants of truth and logic, to purchase U.S. television
programming is theft. The real truth is that Bell ExpressVu and Star
Choice and the host of other cable companies who make billions off the
backs of Canadian television viewers, wail and rail against the claimed
loss of $400 million a year to U.S. satellite television providers. We
wouldn't be jumping throught the extra hoops to buy U.S. programming if
Canadian content was as desireable - quality-wise, selection-wise and
price-wise.

Ham-handed and dick-headed government policies created and enforced by
Liberal Ottawa's Commissars of Culture deny Canadians cultural freedom
of choice and expression [supposedly protected by the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms] and apply draconian measures - police persecution and
enormous fines. And some of the judges, appointed by the Liberal Prime
Minister, are not doing their jobs - protecting those Rights and Freedoms.

The communist regimes of the Soviet Union were not much worse in
enforcing communist culture on their populace.