Europe waits for Germany to come to the rescue | Anatole Kaletsky: Economic view - Times Online

I heard on TV yesterday, in an interview with a Brit journalist with an American socialite, that the world financial crisis is the fault of the USA – as the presenter put it, “you lot”. It has seemed to me from the start that the EU is a fundamentally unstable construct and my observations overseas has been that they have tried to emulate the conspicuous consumption of the Americans without the elevated productivity of the American economy.

Now, I have finally seen an analysis from within the EU that confirms my beliefs, despite the rhetoric blaming the US for all the ills of the Old World. Apparently:

“Last Friday the European Commission published what were arguably the most catastrophic economic statistics produced by any official institution in the capitalist world since 1945…What these statistics confirmed is that the credit crunch has been a far greater disaster for Germany and most of continental Europe than for the US and Britain. In fact, it is Europe that faces a genuinely unprecedented economic crisis, whereas the recessions in America and Britain are broadly similar in scale to the ones of the past three decades.”

Europe waits for Germany to come to the rescue Anatole Kaletsky: Economic view - Times Online

Essentially, the powerhouses of the EU economy have been buoyed up by bad loans from wealthy Europe to developing Europe. As the fictions of these loans becomes apparent a credit crunch causes crises in many of the European “provinces”. This can usually be dealt with by instituting draconian economic and fiscal policies but that is no longer possible because everyone now uses the common Euro. Unless Germany bails everyone out there will be a crash beyond the memory of everyone alive. The only ones who will be cushioned against it will be Britain because they did not jump headlong into the Euro.

God bless the Euro-sceptics! and thank goodness someone is willing to speak with honesty. Let’s just hope that those who are trying to scapegoat the USA don’t push for revenge for their failed economy.

One Small Step for Mankind

Finally!!! The Canadian Ministry of Justice has been directed to review Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This has been used to shut down Freedom of Speech for a long time contrary to its intended purpose. Albertan Reverend Stephen Boissoin has a lifetime ban on speaking in public about his beliefs about homosexuality (recall that he is a clergyman supported by scripture). The same post discusses the CHRC's determination that true invective by an Imam is not worthy of censure.

The nature of Section 13 is vile. If people feel the need to spout hatred then it should be the obligation of all people to challenge and shame them. To have the State silence them is an act of political and social laziness and drives them underground where they attract the most violent adherents.

Cudos to Prime Minister Harper. Let's hope it works out.

Democracy in Action

It has occured to me that an election is, primarily, an opportunity for a people to take responsibility for what is done in their name.
It has often been said about the American hypocracy regarding the election of Hamas in the Palestinian territories. Apparently the fact that the Palestinians elected them is supposed to give them legitimacy that overrides their pledge to annihilate Israel. When they declared themselves absolved of all agreements and treaties with Israel the Palestinian people were still supposed to see the benefits that depended on those treaties - like the taxes and tarifs collected by Israel for the PA.
No. When a people elect a terrorist organization that doesn't recognise the right of Israel to exist that doesn't legitimize the Hamas terrorists; it delegitimizes the Palestinian people themselves. They laid down with the dogs and were surprised to find that they have fleas.
I, For one, hope the fleas bite hard and make the Palestinians act like adults next time. I'm not, however, holding my breath.

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

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.

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.
Apparently,

"(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.

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.

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.