Quotulatiousness

July 9, 2010

Poll numbers understate unhappiness with police over G20

Filed under: Cancon, Law, Liberty — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 18:11

Publius makes a very good point here:

The Greater Toronto Area holds a population of about 5.6 million, stretching from Burlington in the west to Oshawa in the East. The City of Toronto comprises less than half the total population, and less than one-tenth of the total land area. The summit, protests and general mayhem occurred in the downtown core, itself a small area of the City of Toronto. In the lands north of Bloor, west of Bathurst and East of the Don River, the summit meant traffic delays, not riot cops.

Travelling on the 400 series highways that weekend entailed some delays — much of the Gardiner Expressway was closed — and the most notable police presence was at highway interchanges and on / off ramps. Even for those who live in the City of Toronto itself, the vast majority saw the violence of the summit weekend on television. A large number of Torontonians had simply evacuated the City altogether, either to the suburbs to stay with relatives, or to cottage country. As a result, the images fixed in most Torontonians minds are of police cruisers burning — played again and again — and not of officers dragging middle aged men with prosthetic legs across city streets. As the stories of that weekend seep out, expect those poll numbers to change.

I was one of those who chose not to hang around in the city for the entire week leading up to the summit: I didn’t see the point in putting up with the delay and hassle. I still think it was a remarkably stupid idea to hold the G20 meetings in downtown Toronto, and that the police were handed a duff hand to play. But even given that, the police played their hand very badly.

There may or may not be a serious inquiry into the affair, but the police lost a lot of support between Friday night and Saturday night: letting the geeky nihilists get away with dramatic street theatre on national TV, then turning around and arresting innocent bystanders. It took remarkable effort to squander public support, but the police or the politicians directing the police managed to do it. Bureaucratic bipolar disorder isn’t pretty.

June 19, 2010

Penn still waiting for that call from Hitler’s booking agent

Filed under: Humour, Liberty, Media, Religion — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 11:57

An amusing interview in Vanity Fair points out that Penn Jillette would even go on Hitler’s talk show:

Is that why you don’t have a problem going on Glenn Beck’s show, because he doesn’t pretend to be objective?

Well, it’s complicated. Tommy Smothers, who’s one of my heroes, got really angry at me about it. We actually had this argument in public, on another show that’s going to be on Showtime this summer called The Green Room With Paul Provenza. Tommy attacked me for being on Glenn Beck, and he ended up saying, and I don’t think this part made it on the air, “If Hitler had a talk show, you’d probably do that too.”

And your retort?

I said yes, I would, and I would tell the truth.

Wow. O.K. then.

I’m not kidding.

Just don’t mention the part about telling the truth to Hitler’s talent bookers, and I’m pretty sure you’ll get a guest slot.

Oh, I won’t say a word. But you know what I mean, right? It does have an effect. I go on Glenn Beck as an atheist and talk about atheism. And I have people come up to me and say, “You know, until I saw you on Glenn Beck, speaking so passionately about atheism, I’d never considered that as a moral decision.” That’s incredibly powerful. These are people watching a hardcore Christian show and being exposed to an atheist point of view.

Your intentions seem genuine, but I can’t help myself, Penn. Every time I hear you’ve been on Glenn Beck, it makes me a little sick.

It makes me sick too! When people come up to me and say they love the show, I feel sick. Because I do disagree with a lot of what he says. But I also feel a little sick whenever people say they saw me on Keith Olbermann.

And yet you continue to do it. You know, there’s an easy way to stop making yourself sick.

But I think it’s important. I may be the only person who goes on Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck and says the exact same shit. I am so much more socially liberal than Olbermann will ever be. You can’t believe how pro gay and pro freedom of speech I am. I’m way out beyond anyone on the Left. And as for fiscal conservatism and small government, I’m so much further to the right than Glenn Beck. Nobody is further left and further right than me. As I’m fond of saying, if you want to find utopia, take a sharp right on money and a sharp left on sex and it’s straight ahead.

And I love Penn’s suggestion for the Obama re-election campaign in 2012 at the end of the article.

June 18, 2010

Another “daring” ad

Filed under: Britain, Religion — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 09:54

If it was really “daring”, it wouldn’t be Christianity being mocked for commercial purposes:

A controversy-courting Italian ice-cream maker is in hot water for running an ad featuring a heavily pregnant nun with the strapline “immaculately conceived”, after a stream of complaints to the advertising watchdog that it is offensive to Christians because it mocks the birth of Jesus.

The ad, which is featured in magazines The Lady and Grazia, features a pregnant nun enjoying a pot of Antonio Fedirici ice-cream.

The Advertising Standards Authority has launched an investigation to see if the campaign breaks the advertising code on the grounds of taste and decency. The ASA has received about 40 complaints from members of the public that it is offensive to Christians, especially Catholics, “because it mocks the virgin birth of Jesus”.

It’s not only safe to poke fun at the religious beliefs of Christians, it’s rather expected in certain quarters. Just as a thought experiment, what are the chances that someone would do something similar mocking any other religion?

Update: Of course, there’s mockery and then there’s mockery.

June 11, 2010

What could possibly go wrong?

Filed under: Government, Liberty, Politics, Technology, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 09:30

The US Senate is considering a bill that would give the President an internet “kill switch”. Funny how the one area most open to the widest possible spectrum of opinion and belief might be shut down at will, leaving only the regular propaganda outlets uncontrolled:

Under PCNAA, the federal government’s power to force private companies to comply with emergency decrees would become unusually broad. Any company on a list created by Homeland Security that also “relies on” the Internet, the telephone system, or any other component of the U.S. “information infrastructure” would be subject to command by a new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) that would be created inside Homeland Security.

The only obvious limitation on the NCCC’s emergency power is one paragraph in the Lieberman bill that appears to have grown out of the Bush-era flap over warrantless wiretapping. That limitation says that the NCCC cannot order broadband providers or other companies to “conduct surveillance” of Americans unless it’s otherwise legally authorized.

Lieberman said Thursday that enactment of his bill needed to be a top congressional priority. “For all of its ‘user-friendly’ allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets,” he said. “Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies — cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals.”

For those of you who think this is a super-cool neat idea (because Obama wouldn’t ever abuse this new rule), just try the mental image of George Bush or Sarah Palin with this kind of power. Still seem like a good notion?

April 23, 2010

Senator McCain’s latest assault on “due process”

Filed under: Law, Liberty, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 10:02

Whenever I think badly of President Obama (which is a pretty regular event), I have to remind myself that his main opponent in the 2008 US presidential campaign would have been even worse on civil liberties:

Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) has introduced a bill that would allow the President to imprison an unlimited number of American citizens (as well as foreigners) indefinitely without trial. Known as The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010, or S. 3081, the bill authorizes the President to deny a detainee a trial by jury simply by designating that person an “enemy belligerent.”

Even better, should someone manage to be released, the notion of “return to the battlefield” apparently includes exercising your freedom of speech:

[T]he U.S. military has officially classified many former Guantanamo detainees, such as England’s Tipton Three, as having “returned to the battlefield” for merely granting an interview for the movie The Road to Guantanamo. Another five innocent Uighur (Ethnic Turkish Muslims from China) detainees had been listed as having “returned to the battlefield” after their release because their lawyer had written an op-ed protesting their prolonged detention without trial after they had been mistakenly picked up by a greedy bounty hunter. Writing an opinion or speaking an opinion against the party in power in Washington can — and already has — made some people “enemy belligerents.”

So, thank goodness Senator McCain didn’t become president, even if it means putting up with Barack Obama for at least four years . . .

April 13, 2010

Why you should be worried about ACTA

Filed under: Law, Liberty, Media — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:33

H/T to BoingBoing.

April 6, 2010

Recommended to your attention

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 22:13

A link from the latest Reason Online mailing led to this article, which is quite worth reading, if only for the pro-Canadian/anti-Soviet-Canuckistan comments:

The Hate-America-First outfit Heritage Foundation says the U.S. of A. may be a tad freer when it comes to economics than trans-fat-free Denmark, land of free speech for Islamo-dumbkopfs, but is less free than Canada, a country whose greatest export remains a former pitchman for Molson Export and one of both of the stars of the original Star Trek series

And some of the amusing comments:

¢: I’ll assume they say Canada’s freer because it’s much, much whiter. White supremacists always rank Hong Kong at the top of things.

Ken Shultz: I don’t have the stats handy, but I think the notion of Canada being remarkably “white” is a bit of a misconception . . . especially if by “white” you mean some sort of uniform ethnicity.

From aboriginals and metis to the francophones in Quebec, and from the ethnic Chinese in Vancouver to the “Newfies”, I think Canada’s a lot more diverse than most Americans give them credit for.

It’s almost an American conceit, I guess, that when we look at the rest of the world, we don’t think it’s diverse unless more than 10% of the population is of African ancestry? [. . .]

dr duncan druhl: If you lived near Francophones, Francophiles, or just the French in general, trust me, you’d buy that they are a very distinct group. The ones in Canada are strange because they can’t stand the French because the France-French look down their nose at them for their strange dialect, which is probably as close to common street French from the 16th and 17th century as we’ll likely find anywhere.

creech: Canadians are too modest to start bragging about this. Canadian tax rates are such that the boss is starting to jigger intercompany pricing to move profit from the U.S. to Canada. Used to be the other way around.

Force shits upon Reason’s back: Canadians are too modest

Have you ever met a Canadian? They have many fine traits; modesty is not among them.

March 23, 2010

Even parliamentarians have to watch what they say

Filed under: Britain, Liberty, Religion — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:28

A British member of parliament was investigated by the police after a complaint from a would-be British equivalent to one of our infamous Human Rights Commissions, for an ill-advised comparison of a burkha to a paper bag:

A race equality council was “outrageous” for complaining to police about criticism of the burka in a political debate, an MP said today.

Tory Philip Hollobone said he faced a police investigation after he dubbed the burka “the religious equivalent of going around with a paper bag over your head with two holes for the eyes”.

Northamptonshire Race Equality Council contacted police after the comment made during a parliamentary debate last month.

[. . .]

“There will be those who agree and those who disagree, and that is fine. What we cannot have in this country are MPs being threatened when they speak out on contentious issues.

“The judgment of the Northamptonshire Race Equality Council is quite wrong in speaking to police as they haven’t tried to engage in any debate.

“I have no criticism of the police — the police have behaved impeccably. But I do have huge criticisms of the Northamptonshire Race Equality Council, which is a taxpayer-funded organisation and should not be spending time trying to prosecute members of parliament. Their behaviour is outrageous.”

The fact that he’s an MP only makes this story more news-worthy, but it does illustrate just how circumscribed freedom of speech has become.

The Canadian “flavour” of free speech

Filed under: Cancon, Liberty — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 10:15

Marni Soupcoff hits the nail on the head with this observation:

Do Canadians understand freedom of expression? For several years, I’ve been arguing that the majority of them don’t — that despite freedom of speech’s prominent place in the Charter, they think it means the ability to say critical things provided these things don’t offend or upset anybody. Protest away, as long as you don’t actually rock the boat.

It’s part of that notorious “Canadian nice” thing: we’re so terribly afraid of offending someone that we’ve empowered the state to monitor and “correct” our speech and behaviour. We like the idea of free speech, but we also undercut the spirit by carving out exceptions to ensure that free speech is not free to offend or insult or demean the listener (or bystanders, or people totally unconnected to the conversation).

This is the genesis of our “hate speech” legislation, which legally defines certain kinds of speech as being so harmful that the use must be proscribed. We appear to fear the use of certain words and phrases as much as if they were literal clubs or bludgeons or some other kind of blunt instrument. In other words, we think it worse to hear offensive speech than to be physically threatened with bodily harm.

This is why the University of Ottawa’s François Houle not only felt it necessary to warn Ann Coulter about our draconian speech laws, but almost certainly felt that without such a warning, those laws were likely to be put into motion. The unspoken but hardly concealed subtext is that we recognize that Americans are more mature than Canadians: they can hear those horrible, horrible words without taking damage or harm.

What initially sounds like another example of Canadian smugness turns out to be an example of Canadian inferiority. Again.

March 9, 2010

Opening the door to arbitrary punishment

Filed under: Britain, Economics, Law, Liberty, Technology — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 07:33

Cory Doctorow talks about why the proposed “three strikes” internet ban is such a stupid idea:

February 6, 2010

Tweet of the day

Filed under: Humour, Religion — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 11:27

loresjoberg
When all you have is a hammer, a nail, and 95 theses, everything looks like a church door.

January 7, 2010

Tracking the effectiveness of bloggers by arrests

Filed under: China, Media, Politics — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 07:30

2009 was a tough year for journalists, with at least 76 killed and arrests and physical assaults increased over last year. In a back-handed way, the effectiveness of bloggers and other informal journalists could be measured by the ways in which they get harassed, intimidated, or otherwise interfered with as they tried to report on the news:

Meanwhile, the spotlight is increasingly falling on bloggers, as 2009 was the first year that more than 100 bloggers and cyber-dissidents were imprisoned.

In a number of countries online dissent is now a criminal offence: authorities have responded to the internet as pro-democracy tool with new laws and crackdowns. A pair of Azerbaijani bloggers were sentenced to two years in prison for making a film mocking the political elite.

China was still the leading Internet censor in 2009. However, Iran, Tunisia, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam and Uzbekistan have all also made extensive use website blocking and online surveillance to monitor and control dissent. The Turkmen Internet remains under total state control. Egyptian blogger Kareem Amer remains in jail, while well-known Burmese comedian Zarganar has a further 34 years of his prison sentence to serve.

However, the Report also notes that democratic countries have not lagged far behind, instancing the various steps taken by European countries to control the internet under the guise of protection against child porn and illegal downloading. It also notes that Australia intends to put in place a compulsory filtering system that poses a threat to freedom of expression.

December 11, 2009

Changes coming to England’s over-generous libel laws?

Filed under: Britain, Law — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:19

For the aggrieved, suing in London has been the way to go, due to English laws which strongly favour the plaintiff. This may change, as the laws are being reviewed:

England has long been a mecca for aggrieved people from around the world who want to sue for libel. Russian oligarchs, Saudi businessmen, multinational corporations, American celebrities — all have made their way to London’s courts, where jurisdiction is easy to obtain and libel laws are heavily weighted in favor of complainants.

Embarrassed by London’s reputation as “a town called sue” and by unusually stinging criticisms in American courts and legislatures, British lawmakers are seriously considering rewriting England’s 19th-century libel laws.

A member of the House of Lords is preparing a bill that would, among other things, require foreigners to demonstrate that they have suffered actual harm in England before they can sue here.

December 4, 2009

More good news on reining in the out-of-control HRC bureaucracy

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Cancon, Law, Liberty — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:16

Colby Cosh summarizes the results of the Alberta Queen’s Bench decision on the Boisson case:

So how stands freedom of the press in Alberta after Thursday’s Queen’s Bench decision tossing out the Boissoin human-rights panel ruling? Justice E.C. Wilson’s reasons establish two big things, pending some higher-level judicial review of Alberta’s human-rights regime:

1. The Charter of Rights can’t be used willy-nilly by content creators in magazines and newspapers as a shield against tribunal oversight, but

2. The tribunals have to confine themselves strictly to the powers granted them by statute, defer to Charter values, respect the presumption of innocence, and in general act a lot less like a cross between a military junta and a three-ring circus.

In 2002 Red Deer preacher Stephen Boisson had written a sweaty, sulfurous letter about the Great Gay Conspiracy to the local daily paper (pause for ironic smirk: it’s called the Advocate). Among other things, Boisson denounced the spectacle of “men kissing men”, which suggests he may not know his way around the synoptic Gospels too well. In any event, a panel of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission found him guilty of discrimination-by-the-word, and he was subjected to a fine, prior restraint on his future speech, and a demand for a written apology.

October 24, 2009

QotD: Canada and freedom of expression

Filed under: Cancon, Law, Quotations — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 00:26

Some Canadians are rather touchy about criticism from Americans regarding freedom of speech in Canada. The irony of this touchiness is that the Canadian Supreme Court has based its free-speech jurisprudence, at least in the context of antidiscrimination concerns, in large part on the theories of left-wing American academics such as University of Michigan professor Catharine MacKinnon. The Canadian left has a penchant for importing left-wing ideas from the U.S. and elsewhere, adopting them as public policy, and then accusing anyone who objects of being "anti-Canadian" because these policies somehow define Canadian identity. I like Canada a lot myself, but I should hope that there is more to Canadian identity than national health insurance, gun control, and aggressive hate speech laws.

David Bernstein, “Touchy Canadians”, The Volokh Conspiracy, 2003-12-05

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress