31 December 2008

There is No Such Thing as "Truce" for Israel

“BY THE time we’re finished, there won’t be a Hamas building left standing in Gaza.”
Israel’s deputy chief of staff, General Dan Harel, to a group of mayors from towns close to the Gaza Strip on 29 December 2008 (The Economist)
There are protests by Palestinian sympathizers, most of them of Palestinian or Arab extraction, around the world against the disproportionate force employed over the last few days in Gaza. DISPROPORTIONATE?!?!?! What the hell is proportionate to the indiscriminate use of Qassam rockets at Israeli towns for years? Every time I have heard a Palestinian or Arab speaker talk of this on the radio the speak of Fireworks being shot into Israel. Bullshit. Qassam may not be Tomahawk missiles but they are definitely not fireworks.
Why would the Israelis agree to a truce with Hamas? Hamas doesn't believe in Truce for any reason other than regrouping and rearming when they are losing. Whenever Israel unilaterally tries to disengage they see a dramatic incease in attacks. The number of Qassam rockets shot from Gaza into israel by month. years 2002 - 2007.
Note that the August 2005 Unilateral Disengagement was closely followed by the highest levels of Qassam activity to date and that has been maintained to the present day. What is the incentive for Israel to make concessions or agree to a "truce".
No. Israel must rebuff calls for a Gaza Truce. The onus is on Hamas to stop firing rockets as a first step to peace and that is unlikely. The only way that they will have a moment of peace is to drive Hamas into the ground. They will then have to take it upon themselves to keep Hamas down because the rest of the world has shown a distinct lack of resolve to do so.

27 December 2008

The Loss of Freedom

George Jonas has written a piece on the fate of freedom in the West as we transit from a Classic Liberal to a Modern Liberal society. His post is pretty rambling but his warning is clear - we need to protect basic freedoms and beware of the incursion of false "human rights" that are really individual sensibilities that are rammed down the throats of others.
George has managed to escape from two frightful events in his lifetime - the occupation of Hungary by the Soviet Union and marriage to Barbara Amiel. In the first he became painfully aware of the dangers of the unquestionable sensibilities of the moral elite overriding the rights of anyone to question or debate popular myths and what "everyone knows". We are in serious danger of tredding that path with Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The "right" to not be offended masked as being targeted with "Hate Speech" represents a slippery slope to true authoritarian oppression.
I wrote earlier about the Canadian Human Rights Commission inconsistency in a ruling in Montreal recently compared to the gag order issued to Reverend Stephen Boissoin in Alberta. Social misfires, such as statements that offend others, need to be dealt with socially - if someone offends you shun them. But for the State to issue a gag order on otherwise free speech is an abomination in a "free" country. It is only a short step to including criticism of the government as offensive (or "hate") speech. I believe that the argument that homosexuality (or other things) is blasphemous is wrong. I, however, will defend with my life the right of wrong people to say that it is. They may even be right; I only believe that I argue from God's side of this argument.
Just to be clear, the CHRC finding that the writings of imam Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Dameus Al-Hayiti do not represent hate speech against identifiable groups is dead wrong. The ruling gagging Reverend Boissoin is also dead wrong. The difference is that imam Al-Hayiti must have the right to argue his hate and that must be vociferously refuted in the same that the view of Reverend Boissoin must be refuted, not gagged.

23 December 2008

Opposition Doesn't Like Senate Appointments

"Harper’s Senate appointments called 'obscene'" reports the Juliet O'Neill in the National Post. What she didn't report until well into the story is that the epithet was issued by New Democratic Party MP David Christopherson. To them all Senate appointments are obscene.
The criticism of the appointments is not restricted to the NDP on ideological grounds or by the Liberals on the grounds of lost opportunity. Conservatives have also come out against them on ideological grounds and that is a sad, short sighted position. As idealists both the NDP and the those conservatives have a single-minded view of the governing of the Nation.
The NDP wants to do away with any mechanism of "second thought" so that, at any opportunity they can practise their social experimentation that has always been the goal of Progressivists. This trial and error method, which considers frequent failure as an acceptable means to an utopian dream, is hampered by an Upper Chamber that has to consider the misery that is caused by ill-conceived schemes of social engineering. It must be abolished. In fact, let's make the Canadian Parliament even more unstable and bring in Proporational Representation and give every fringe group control.
The Liberals saw the possibility of scamming 18 seats in the Senate when they were out of power and it made them sick with delight. At least, not being idealists in any sense of the word, they are calm, if disappointed. They can wait and fight another day.
The conservative idealists who think of the appointments as a betrayal are the saddest subset of them all. They are willing to forego the possibility of a duly elected and responsible Senate for decades in order to stick with the ideal of not appointing unelected Senators ahead of a possibly defeat in January. This attitude was well elucidated by Don Martin in his bitter diatribe in the National Post:
Instead of reforming it, Mr Harper has reconfirmed the Senate as the pigpen for party has-beens, cast-offs, party bagmen and political pals with a couple honorable mentions thrown in to make the Conservative rebalancing project go down a little easier.
Now Martin has his own peccadilloes related to Mike Duffy's appointment but this "baby with the bathwater" attitude is why the Reform Party was never able to govern and shouldn't have.
The reason that I have voted Conservative since 2001 is that they approach politics with principles, unlike the Liberals. They don't, however, stick to an ideology and damn practicality just to make themselves feel righteous. When ideologists fail they are able to blame the betrayers and infidels. They are never around to pick up the pieces.

Is Don Martin a Little Bitter?

Don Martin has made a pretty transparent "always a bridesmaid..." diatribe in his "Full Comment" article in the National Post regarding Conservative Senators and, in particular, Journalist Senators.
"(t)here’s always professional squeamishness when journalists are granted a juicy patronage plum from the government they are paid to objectively cover."
Martin goes on to suggest state that,
"Whether real or imaginary, journalist appointments by government are viewed as the reward for obedient conduct, a perception further tainted by having Mr. Duffy’s appointment lumped in with a trough-full of patronage payoffs for Conservative fundraisers, defeated candidates and party toadies."
Mike Duffy is the most - one of the few - balanced journalists in Canadian Broadcasting. This is acknowledged by all parties and for this alone he deserves such an honour. His judgment will be a welcome honour in the Senate. I will comment on the flurry of bitching about the ethics of these appointments in light of Stephen Harper's view on the Senate in another post and Don Martin's comments will figure in that.
It seems to me that Don Martin's greatest real concern about Mike Duffy's appointment is that it did not go to Don Martin.

20 December 2008

Mind Boggling Inanity at the CHRC

There is not much I can say about the ridiculous decision by the CHRC to reject a complaint filed by Marc LeBuis regarding hate speech from Montreal imam Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Dameus Al-Hayiti against gays, women and Jews that hasn't been said by Firey Spirited Zionist, Mark Steyn, or Ezra Levant except to say that it is wrong to say, as Al-Hayiti says, that:

  • Homosexuality is a "perversion"
  • Homosexuals "spread disorder on earth"
  • Homosexuals and lesbians should be "exterminated in this life"
  • "Homosexuals caught performing sodomy are beheaded..."
  • "It is because of this religion of lies [Christianity], which goes against human nature, that the West is now full of perversity, corruption and adultery..."
  • Jews "spread corruption and chaos on earth."
  • Most Jews "seek only material goods and money, apart from that, they have nothing..."
and he should be shunned from polite society for saying these things. I would defend his right to make an ass of himself by saying them - as I would for Reverend Stephen Boissoin who wrote a letter entitled "Homosexual Agenda Wicked" to the Red Deer Advocate. He received a lifetime ban on speaking in public about his beliefs about homosexuality. Read the letter at the link. It is nothing like the vitriol of Al-Hayiti.

So the lesson is, if you are Muslim you have a right to free speech. If you are not, particularly if you are Jewish or Christian beware not to dislodge your gag.

Perhaps something positive will come out of it all. Ezra Levant reports that support for the repeal of Section 13 of the Human Rights Act is getting louder and wider. Perhaps the hypocrisy of Jennifer Lynch and her band of zealots at CHRC should finally be looking through the classifieds.

09 December 2008

Coalition playng Spin-The-Bottle with Democracy

In the same vane as I posted earlier, the CPC is definitely concerned with the disregard for democratic due process displayed by the Opposition Parties, particularly the Liberals. This from the National Campaign Chair:

St├ęphane Dion has resigned as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, and by extension, of the Liberal/NDP/Bloc Coalition. In yet another stunning and unprecedented demonstration of Liberal contempt for our democratic rights, they've decided to appoint a new leader in his place.

Not only was the Liberal/NDP/Bloc Coalition not elected to govern this country , but the person who would become Canada's Prime Minister wasn't even the leader of a federal party during the last election and may not even be elected by the Liberal (or any) party's membership .

The Liberals have decided to parachute Michael Ignatieff into the position of Prime Minister, and one thing is clear: Canadians didn't elect this coalition to form a government , and they most certainly didn't elect Michael Ignatieff as Prime Minister .

The Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition would be a disaster for Canada's economy, and for our democracy.

Nobleman vs. Doberman

This is actually the title that Lawrence Martin used to lambaste Stephen Harper about his difficult times ahead with "Sir Michael" (Ignatieff) at the helm of the Liberal Party. Apparently, "Mr. Ignatieff will move cautiously, easing off on any coalition commitment," and "...cannot probably help but move his party's numbers upward."

On the other hand the vile Conservatives will be reduced to "berat(ing) Mr. Ignatieff as an egghead and beat him up for signing the coalition pact. But his being new to politics means the fire-breathing Harper will have less ammunition on which to base cheap attack ads."

How about a lack of concern for the discipline of democracy? Having signed on - once you agree it doesn't matter that you were hesitant - to the failed Socialist/Separatist Putsch Mr. Ignatieff is soon to be annointed by a process that is even a step further removed from the elitist procedure that usually governs Liberal conventions. Following the British model of the Parliamentary Party selecting the leader they have effectively shut out the West in the determination of the next leader.

Let's not forget that the Putsch was about to appoint Stephane Dion as Prime Minister - about the only thing about which there was significant concensus during the election was that this should NOT happen. It seems that reversing the slowly strengthening support that the Conservatives are building is justification for just about any mechanism besides seeking a democratic mandate. It would seem that this is because that is the path that is least likely to accomplish their rise to power. Does this sound like a story from the Russian Court of Tsar Alexander I? Perhaps that is because that is where his family came into prominence. Michael Georgievitch Ignatieff might be the son of the fifth son of a Russian Count but it would appear that this apple did not fall far from his noble tree.

I don't think that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives will be starving for issues upon which to criticize the New Liberals.

08 December 2008

What is Freedom

What does freedom mean in a real context? Most thinkers trace the development of the idea, in modern times, from Thomas Hobbes, through John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, John Stuart Mill, and others. These fellows approached freedom from a highly theoretical direction and, with the exception of Hobbes, considered "freedom" to be from Government interference. Only Hobbes considered that freedom might be from an external influence other than the sovereign government and he considered only the threat from a chaotic anarchy.
It seems to me that there are numerous agencies who can threaten our freedom and a strong government is as likely to be our protector as our oppressor. That is why it was developed.
I will post ideas and arguments here on this subject. I hope for lively debate.

Liberal Collapse

I just watched Martha Hall-Findley talking on CTV about the exciting events in the Liberal Party. They have decided that it is too important that they be able to meet the challenge of tearing apart the elected government to elect their next leader by a democratic process. They are going to do the British model of election by the "parliamentary party".

Of course, as an anti-Liberal, I think I should be celebrating this. There are almost no Liberal MPs from the West so this will further isolate the Libs from the West and make it a truly regional party of Ontario.

The rhetoric of "Harper is a dictator who will face the wrath of the people" is getting pretty tiresome and is quite contrary to the polls. They suggest that a Harper-led Conservative Party would win a majority if there was an election now. I don't think that would be a likelihood soon. The way the Libs are going I am pretty sure that they would want to assume power without the inconvenience of a general election. They have demonstrated their distaste for that inefficient technique already now, haven't they?

Sent from my wireless handheld device / Transmis de mon appareil portable

07 December 2008

The Failed NDP/Bloc/Liberal Putsch

It would seem that, in the interest of getting into government or disrupting the responsible operation of government, Jack Layton and Stephane Dion will stop at nothing.
While it is true that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives did not get a majority to govern a few weeks ago they did get, by far the largest number of seats and the country sent the Liberals a resounding message:

"We do not want the Liberals in government and we definitely do not want Stephane Dion to be the Prime Minister."
Apparently, the three amigos (Jack Layton, Stephane Dion, and Gilles Duceppe) are wiser than the people of Canada and are willing to override the error to put Dion in the chair - not the driver's chair exactly because both Jack and Gilles (I like that) would have veto authority on all government decisions.
Really can't blame Duceppe. He is very honest about the fact that he is not in place to look out for the best interests of Canada. Dion is a Dupe who is punch drunk and should be put away in a confortable room to convalesce. Jack Layton is the evil driver behind this one - I'd bet on it. He looked like a teenage boy with his first boner in the news conference where they signed their pact.
I read somewhere that Jack Layton is evidence that the Devil exists and is sowing mischief in the world. A truer statement has not frequently been made.
Stephen Harper has been criticised for not being cooperative with the Opposition and doing things their way. He is a bully for governing like he has a majority because the Liberals don't have the courage to defeat him. This assumption has been very accurate for quite some time and Harper has been able to work his way through his entire agenda of promises fromt the 2006 Election. For him to govern otherwise would have been to negotiate from a position that was not as strong as he was in. That would be not only stupid but incompetent.
Harper was elected because Canadians had had enough of crooked Liberal management and the fiscal policies of the NDP would be utterly disasterous. It would be utterly irresponsible to use policies that he believed to be untenable when he had the option not to. He didn't and he was right.
Stephen Harper is the right man to be the Prime Minister of Canada.