Some Americans persist in believing that Canadians are the “most polite people in the world.” How about the most gullible, or passive, or apathetic? As of this writing, I can find no news items about Canadians protesting this censorship, and only 1 item about a free private showing in Canada–by a Christian ministry in Edmonton, May 14. A google search using the words “Canada banned unplanned” in different orders yields the same information, and the only media writing about the de facto ban are American. I found a webpage called canadafreepress.com, which I thought was Canadian but turned out to be American, a sort of radio free Europe of the internet (subtly equating Canadian censorship with communist propaganda?), with the motto “Because without America, there is no free world.” Sorry America-haters, it’s true.
OTTAWA, May 20, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) . Distribution companies are effectively banning the film Unplanned from screening in Canadian cinemas, according to the producers of the pro-life biopic. Chuck Konzelman, the film’s writer, director, and producer, told LifeSiteNews via email that at least one of the two largest Canadian film distributors said “content” rather than a lack of consumer demand is the reason for banning the film. According to Konzelman, Canadian law requires that films have distributors so that they can be shown theatrically. In addition, no rating from one of the provincial film boards can be granted, because the producers must list a distributor on the application forms to the film boards.
Konzelman confirmed that Canada’s largest distributor, Mongrel Media, turned down the film because of its “content.” Writing that Mongrel’s response begs the question, “What’s wrong with our content?” he confirmed that there is “nothing objectionable in the film; no foul language, no nudity, no sexuality, and the only violence is that which is necessarily connected with an abortion procedure.” He concluded that “it’s the pro-life message itself which is objectionable” to the distributors. Konzelman said Cineplex gave “unsatisfactory answers” when asked why it did not distribute Unplanned. He said it is highly unusual for a successful indie U.S. film to lack theatrical distribution in Canada.
I used to love traveling to and in Canada, but I haven’t been there for many years. I would bet they are still pretty nice folks, and quiet, compared to us. But then, they have no equivalent of our First Amendment rights or our view of government needing the consent of the governed. I don’t equate silence with politeness.
Thus a rhetorical question leads to my superfluous, or is it superlative, Game Of Thrones commentary. I mean, after 8 seasons and probably millions of viewers, why not? After the–to me–unnecessary, sinful and tragic destruction of Kings Landing by Drogon the dragon, directed and ordered by Dani, I turned against her, as I am sure many others did. We saw glimpses of her vicious self righteousness before that, but like other tyrants who had convinced themselves that they knew better than everyone else, the full measure of her lust for power required a helpless victim to be fully unwrapped. The city was helpless, the surrender bells were ringing, her enemies routed. She could see it, flying above the rubble. Would you or I have required a full measure of retribution against the innocent for the crimes of their dictator? Or was she like the terrorists who say there are no innocents?
Am I being too harsh, accusing her of lust for power? I will go further, a lust for the most addicting and depraving kind of power: the power to remake the world into her model of justice and equity. What degree of self righteousness is necessary to cast off all restraint in killing the bad guys to free the good guys? Or is it willful blindness? The good guys are usually good until they have the power to impose their will. Doesn’t history clearly show that virtually every revolution against tyranny leads to a worse tyranny? It does, she is a case in point. The biggest surprise for me in the entire 8 seasons is that the dragon appears to be smarter than the humans–he melts down the iron throne that his “mother” sacrificed so many to try to attain. I was less surprised that Jon Snow killed the woman he loved–hard choices and right choices were his forte.
When he kills Dani and Drogon sees what he did, I expected him (I assume Drogon was male, sounds like a male name), to carry her body away, but melting the throne was a reptilian masterstroke. That’s one smart dragon; I would not want to be a rancher or cattle herder, or need to depend on any kind of livestock for my living going forward. Maybe the showrunners should consider a sequel starring Drogon? But I digress. The council of the rulers of the kingdoms, to decide on who should rule, was actually an educational experience. I thought “maybe that was somewhat like how George Washington was elected.” Similarities: Washington got all the electoral votes, he was the only unanimous president in our history, not once but twice! He was the only president who didn’t want the job, kind of like Jon Snow, who would have been elected if Westeros had elections, and if Dani’s troops had forgiven him. But Bran the Broken was an excellent choice. I also liked Sansa’s decision to keep the North independent. Like any great book or show, you don’t want it to end, the ending will never be right for every fan, but I think the ending was as good as it was possible to be, and the depth of characters, intricacy of plots, and treatment of issues and relationships has been well beyond anything I can think of that I have ever seen on TV. I guess I’m in the minority, since every other review of this episode I have read was negative. I think that what I look for in entertainment is edification.
Note: The other very worthy HBO series: Band of Brothers.
All western european countries have hate-speech laws. In 2008, the E.U. adopted a framework decision on “Combating Racism and Xenophobia” that obliged all member states to criminalize certain forms of hate speech. On the other side of the Atlantic, the Supreme Court of the United States has gradually increased and consolidated the protection of hate speech under the First Amendment. The European concept of freedom of expression thus prohibits certain content and viewpoints, whereas, with certain exceptions, the American concept is generally concerned solely with direct incitement likely to result in overt acts of lawlessness.
Yet the origin of hate-speech laws has been largely forgotten. The divergence between the United States and European countries is of comparatively recent origin. In fact, the United States and the vast majority of European (and Western) states were originally opposed to the internationalization of hate-speech laws. European states and the U.S. shared the view that human rights should protect rather than limit freedom of expression. Rather, the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.” Gee, aren’t you shocked? The communists limiting freedom of speech? Or am I just exploiting the commie boogeyman here? Not to shock you, but this idea of “hate speech” originated in the U.N., gasp!
The (nonbinding) universal Declaration of Human Rights (udhr) adopted in 1948 by the U.N. does not include an explicit duty to prohibit hate speech. Article 19 simply secures “freedom of opinion and expression.” However, the drafting history shows that the issues of hate-speech regulation and restrictions on free speech were frequently discussed. During the negotiation of Article 19, the drafters faced the challenge of whether, and if so to what extent, freedom of expression should tolerate even intolerance. The majority of states favored a robust protection of free speech such as that set out in a U.S. proposal (un Doc. e/cn. 4/21), which read “there shall be freedom of speech, of the press and of expression by any means whatsoever.” However, the Soviet Union continuously proposed various amendments aimed at prohibiting expressions of intolerance. Intolerance of what, since the USSR has always been intolerant of stuff we tolerate, such as homosexuality? What they wanted prohibited was criticism of communism, and their methods of enforcing it!
Communism is hardly the only ism to promote repression of freedom of expression. The word Islamophobia was created by the Organization of Islamic Conferences to repress criticism or even evaluation of Islamic fundamentalism, as homophobia was created for the same purpose. What is true does not fear examination or criticism; Any philosophy, religion or lifestyle that wants to suppress those is by definition false.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” Do you recognize these words? Every attempt to curb free speech in America has run up against the First Amendment. Even though it is addressed to Congress, the wording clearly recognizes that freedom of speech is a basic right and the government cannot grant it, but only abridge it. However, not all speech has legal protection. There are two types of threatening or defamatory speech that can potentially be restricted by the law. One is speech or conduct that is likely to incite imminent lawless action such as violence. The second includes certain classes of speech, such as slanderous and libelous words, which can be restricted, if they meet the proper legal definition, by threat of civil suits.
How did the Soviet idea of “hate speech” and it’s tyrannical brother, “hate crime”, worm their way into American jurisprudence? Those ideas, the foundation of which is the implicit claim that we can accurately read someone’s mind and intent by their words and actions, rode to prominence on the back of the group identity-historical grievance dragon. Instead of worrying about the violent intent of individuals, hate speech advocates wanted to ban utterances, conduct, or writing that they deemed prejudicial against a protected individual or group. They were most successful on college campuses, spawning a rash of new speech codes and other imaginative methods to control what people say and think. In the name of diversity certain classes of people—racial minorities, women, and homosexuals—were considered to need protection from offensive language.
The shift from supporting freedom of expression to criminalizing and ostracizing both speech and implicit thoughts was not due to some heightened awareness of persecution so much as a new focus on generalizing the causes of the persecution. I call it, in deference to George Orwell, the NewNewspeak and NewThoughtcrime. Because that’s a mouthful, let’s call it NNNT. NNNT fails to distinguish between legitimate political content, which is protected by the Constitution, and explicit intentions to commit violence, which are not. Under the new rules, what may clearly be an expression of political opinion could be interpreted as offensive to anyone anywhere, and therefore arbitrarily deemed hateful. No direct threats of harm are even necessary. Certain ideas and opinions are now defined by the political content censors to be the moral equivalent of a threat to do violence and physical harm. They make no distinction between threatening someone with real violence and merely disagreeing with the facts and arguments. Nor do they make allowance for the possibility that a disagreement over facts and logic may have nothing whatsoever to do with feelings of hatred.
To assume that all disagreements are grounded in irrational fears is itself irrational. If it were otherwise, we might as well abolish not only our universities but our system of law: Both rely on the assumption that people are moral beings with the freedom to make choices. Without that assumption, people honestly could not be held accountable for anything. If it were all about presumed ill motives, especially those mandated by vague social forces, we might as well not bother to learn the facts about anything. Our pursuit of knowledge and justice fundamentally depends on open and honest debate, and to sacrifice that standard is not only to return to pre-liberal standards of controlling knowledge but to slide over into authoritarian methods of thought control.
Proponents of hate speech restrictions such as New York University Professor Jeremy Waldron believe that criminal intent to commit violence is irrelevant. All that is required for speech to be categorized as hate speech is that a person’s or group’s “dignity” is “under threat.“ From whom? What threat? “Dignity” that needs to be protected by suppressing speech (hate speech, the NewNewspeak) and criminalizing thoughts (hate crimes, NewThoughtcrime) isn’t dignity, it’s servitude. Put aside the huge difference between offending someone and meaning them physical harm. The bigger problem is that it is left almost entirely to the accuser to determine and apply the standards for defining dignity and therefore establish what is offensive and what is not. I am not making this up. The following is an excerpt of a letter that a Scottish pastor, David Robertson, wrote to Police Scotland superintendent regarding a poster. It has unfortunate implications for us.
Going home the other day I noticed a poster that said: Dear Bigots, you can’t spread your religious hate here. End of sermon. Yours, Scotland. “ This is part of a series which is also addressed to transphobes, homophobes, racists etc. The only problem is that this is produced by the Scottish Government and Police Scotland. You state that “A hate incident is any incident that is not a criminal offence, but something which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hate or prejudice.” By your own criteria your posters, especially the one on religion is a hate incident. I perceive it as being motivated by hate and prejudice.
Why? In my day-to-day life I experience a great deal of anti-Christian prejudice, fuelled by ignorance and prejudice. Your poster will just add to that. You imply that it is religious people who are responsible for what you call homophobia and transphobia (although you don’t define what you mean by these terms–is being opposed to SSM ‘homophobia’? Is believing that a woman is a ‘female adult human’ transphobia? By not defining your terms you have of course left room for people to claim your support for anything that they determine is ‘phobic’).
The exclusive nature of the post is also disturbing–you sign it ‘yours Scotland’. You call your website OneScotland which distinctly implies that those of us who don’t agree with the political/ social ideology you are seeking to impose on us all, don’t really belong to Scotland. But this is our country as well as yours. You don’t have the right to call yourselves ‘Scotland’ – as though the rest of us don’t really belong here. Since when do you have the right to speak for the whole of Scotland? You put up this hateful, mocking, threatening poster in our name.
It can’t happen here? It is, just not as far along as Western Europe and Canada. This is a cancer criminalizing thoughts.
Interview from National Review: “Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Virginia, has been a longtime supporter of same-sex marriage. What’s made him unusual is that in recent years he’s been trying to make the case to liberals that ‘same-sex marriage and religious liberty can co-exist.’ In 2017 he co-authored an article at Vox with another law professor to argue that Jack Phillips, the Evangelical Christian baker in Colorado at the center of the Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court case, should be allowed to follow his conscience to not bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.
“Laycock has also been a longtime supporter of enacting a federal gay-rights non-discrimination law, but he doesn’t support the Equality Act, a bill just approved by the House of Representatives that would add ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, because it would ‘crush’ conscientious objectors. ‘It goes very far to stamp out religious exemptions,’ Laycock tells National Review in an email. ‘It regulates religious non-profits. And then it says that [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] does not apply to any claim under the Equality Act. This would be the first time Congress has limited the reach of RFRA. This is not a good-faith attempt to reconcile competing interests. It is an attempt by one side to grab all the disputed territory and to crush the other side.”
“Laycock says that religious schools would probably be viewed as ‘public accommodations’ under the Equality Act even if they refuse all federal funding. They could argue that they are covered under the existing exemption of the Civil Rights Act (section 702), but he observes that they haven’t done well with that argument lately in the lower courts. There have not been that many cases, and the Supreme Court has not spoken; it might be more sympathetic. Schools would still have the ministerial exception, which is constitutional and beyond Congress’s power to repeal.” Nothing is beyond THIS Congress’s power to repeal or impose, except for opposition.
While I don’t think this asinine tyrannical power grab has any chance of becoming law this time, with Donald Trump as President and a Republican majority in the senate, what about next time, since the democrat ass kissers and their fascist queer allies never give up their insatiable lust for the power to impose their warped will on the rest of us. I pose this question: What if Congress and the President passed a law that was so anti liberty, anti American and draconian that most organizations that were subject to it refused to comply, local courts refused to enforce it and police refused to arrest anyone refusing to obey it? Remember, Hillary’s “popular majority” was about equal to the combined population of New York and Los Angeles metro areas, less the number of votes Donald Trump got in those same districts, which was almost none. This misnamed equality act is a proxy for the values of New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington DC to dictate what values the majority of the country will be allowed to express. STOP FOOLING YOURSELVES, THE LGBTQ AGENDA IS NOW ABOUT SILENCING CRITICS, SINCE THEY ACTUALLY HAVE MORE LEGAL RIGHTS THAN ORDINARY CITIZENS.
Do you think I’m overstating? In case you did not follow the link to Vox, here is a snippet: “Many bakers may feel that their responsibility ends when they deliver the cake. But Phillips feels morally responsible for what he creates and helps to celebrate. The result is that Phillips no longer makes wedding cakes for anybody. He has surrendered 40 percent of his business and laid off half his employees. Unless the Supreme Court intervenes, this is a permanent loss of occupation. His alternative was to permanently surrender his conscience. And to what end? To avoid the one-time offense to the same-sex couple of being turned away and being reminded of what they knew anyway: that some Americans still disapprove of their relationship. Their right to be married and to have a wedding cake were never at issue. Many bakers were eager for their business, and when the story broke, the couple promptly accepted an offer of a free wedding cake.“
These are some of the items I am listing for sale on eBay for those who are tired of being merely angry and jealous about my white privilege, but are actually willing to spend some hard earned green to get more white.
A 1 oz. bottle of the tears I cried yesterday when I read about how my white privilege is responsible for eons of POC oppression.
An envelope of my finger and toenail clippings and strands of hair, which the enterprising criminal can leave at their crime scene to implicate me. No hay problema, Esteban, no old white male will ever be arrested. For those into voodoo, you can use those samples to put a curse on me. That won’t improve your whiteness, but might neutralize mine.
A prosthetic penis containing my genuine non-purified white urine, or should I be more precise and say, the usual color urine excreted by a white guy. Available in a range of hues for any race. Yuck, why would someone buy such a disgusting item? Just ask any professional athlete, especially Lamar Odom.
A large letter E with a magnetic base, in the same font as the entrance sign to Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington. You can be known as the person who turned Whitman white. For the illiterate, the kit includes instructions to place the E between the T and the M. This college badly needs a big E. On the college website, they profile two students, “women of color”, who introduce their college experience with the phrase, “I’m a Whittie.” Hey ladies, don’t you mean “whitey?”
Now if you find this blog post offensive and insulting, rather than satirical, I direct you to Jim Goad’s rant about white envelopes being the overwhelming color of choice of the USPS. The US Postal Service’s journey toward social justice will begin with one black envelope. Sure, we’ll have to buy white-ink pens so you can see the address, which is problematic in itself, because it subverts the whole “multicultural crayon” narrative, but together we can make it work. And while we’re at it, let’s deconstruct the patriarchal notion that we receive “mail.” Why must we submit and assume the receptive position as “mail” is delivered into our “boxes” and “slots”? Have you ever received “femail”? I think not! Instead of a “mailman” delivering your “mail,” let’s have “personpersons” delivering “person” to us in black envelopes. Then—and only then—will our society be halfway toward sanity.
You better act soon, as quantities of my tears and tissue are limited.
Charles Cooke in National Review on Socialism is Not Democratic: “It has become something of a running joke that, whenever socialism’s history is highlighted, its diehard advocates insist that ‘that wasn’trealsocialism.’ This defense is frustrating. But it is also instructive, in that it is an admission that, like perpetual motion, socialism has never been realized in the world. The U.S. Constitution has survived for so long because it was built upon the understanding that man is imperfect and always will be, because it accepts that selfishness is ineradicable and so must be harnessed, because it acknowledges that power corrupts as much in our era as it ever did, and because it makes provisions for the fact that disunity is inevitable in any free society. Capitalism, too, has survived because it is built on truth rather than myths. Socialism, by contrast, has failed each and every time it has been tried because it is predicated upon precisely the opposite — that is, precisely thewrong— assumptions.
“One would have imagined that, at some point, ‘That wasn’t real socialism . . .’ would have been followed by ‘and real socialismcan’texist because man isn’t perfectible, selfishness is ineradicable, power has needed restraining since the dawn of time, and political unity is a dangerous and undesirable myth.’ Alas, no such recognition has yet been forthcoming. In the 20th century, Communism killed at least 100 million people — by democide, by famine, by central planning, by war — and yet it is still acceptable to say in public that it was a ‘nice idea. ‘ In the post-war period, ‘democratic’ socialism ravaged the economies of the West like a virus and required a counterrevolution to remove, and yet it remains sufficiently seductive to a slice of the public as to present a threat to the American order. Today, the states that have actively rejected socialism are growing fast (India, Poland, the former East Germany) while those that fell prey to the temptation are either moribund (Greece), tyrannies (China), or international pariahs (Cuba and North Korea) — and yet there is still a solipsistic cottage industry dedicated to blaming their successes and failures on decisions made by the United States. The damn thing is ineradicable.” That’s because the most unattractive features of human nature–envy, wishful thinking, self pity, desire for the power to push others around–are ineradicable, at least until our earthly minds and bodies are exchanged for the eternal.
“The Venezuelan president is now a ruthless dictator who has cracked down on free speech, prohibited mass political protests, and confiscated firearms from anyone who has been even remotely critical of him. Thirteen percent of the country’s population has now fled, and those who have remained have been left so degraded by the government’s price controls that they have gone years without toilet paper, meat, and other basic necessities and have in consequence taken to eating zoo animals for sustenance and to scouring garbage bags for supplies. According to the Pharmaceutical Federation of Venezuela, the country is suffering through an 85 percent medicine shortage and a 90 percent shortage of basic medical supplies. The child-mortality rate has increased 140 percent. Ninety percent of Venezuelans now live in poverty. This year, the IMF predicts, inflation will hit 10 million percent. All this in a country with the world’s largest oil reserves — reserves greater than those of the United States by a factor often.“
Often the impulse to “try” Socialism springs from a misguided desire to “help the poor“, as if exchanging their dignity as contributing members of society for dole dependence helps them. When experience shows that removing incentives to produce and contribute simply spread the misery rather than improve lives, those who still insist socialism is worth trying are, need I repeat myself, driven by envy, wishful thinking, self pity, and desire for the power to push others around. No one is more dangerous than the one who says it’s not so.
This is my second post on socialism, from National Review’s latest issue. Avik Roy is the President of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP.org), a non-partisan, non-profit think tank: “It’s worth defining exactly what “socialized medicine” is, and what it is not. ‘Universal coverage,’ a system in which everyone has health insurance, is not necessarily socialized. Switzerland, for example, has a system of universal coverage in which Swiss residents buy private insurance and receive treatment from private physicians and private hospitals. In contrast to the United States, there are no government-run insurers in Switzerland.
“Canada, on the other hand, has socialized, or ‘single-payer,’ health insurance, in which the government is the only meaningful health insurer. But Canadian-style socialized health insurance is still a minor-league version of socialized health care, because single-payer health insurance can — and frequently does — tolerate the existence of privately owned hospitals and physician clinics. The standard-bearer of truly socialized medicine is the United Kingdom. In Britain, as in Canada, health insurance is the province of the government. But, as it is not in Canada, the delivery of health care is also socialized in Britain. That is, a government health-insurance agency pays a government-employed doctor to send Britons to government-owned hospitals.” The whole mess is called the National Health Service, NHS. This is what proponents of government run health care would lead us to believe works so well. They lie. Read on.
“The NHS is no paradise. Open a random edition of a British daily newspaper and you will likely encounter an article about some egregious problem that the NHS has failed to solve. For example: NHS doctors routinely conceal from patients information about innovative new therapies that the NHS doesn’t pay for, so as not to ‘distress, upset or confuse’ them; terminally ill patients are incorrectly classified as ‘close to death’ so as to allow the withdrawal of expensive life support; NHS expert guidelines on the management of high cholesterol were intentionally not revised after becoming out of date, putting patients at serious risk in order to save money; when the government approved an innovative new treatment for blindness in elderly patients, the NHS initially decided to reimburse for the treatment only after patients were already blind in one eye — using the logic that a person blind in one eye can still see, and is therefore not that badly off; while most NHS patients expect to wait five months for a hip operation or knee surgery, leaving them immobile and disabled in the meantime, the actual waiting times are even worse: eleven months for hips and twelve months for knees (compared with a wait of three to four weeks for such procedures in the United States); one in four Britons with cancer is denied treatment with the latest drugs proven to extend life; those who seek to pay for such drugs on their own are expelled from the NHS system for making the government look bad, and are forced to pay for the entirety of their own care for the rest of their lives; and Britons diagnosed with cancer or heart attacks are more likely to die, and more quickly, than citizens of most other developed nations — Britain’s survival rates for these diseases are, according to an OECD survey, ‘little better than [those] of former Communist countries.’
“One ‘success’ of socialized medicine in Britain is that it has proven impervious to reform. In an attempt to reduce lengthy wait times for emergency-room service, Tony Blair’s Labour government introduced a mandate requiring that patients admitted to an NHS emergency room receive treatment within four hours. Some British hospitals responded by instructing their ambulances to drive around town with ailing patients inside, so as to minimize the number of patients technically waiting for care inside the emergency room. This year, the NHS announced plans to abandon the four-hour guarantee.
“American Medicare works in a different way. American Medicare contains few restrictions on specialist care or expensive technologies. The American Medical Association and other doctors’ lobbies, through a secretive group called the “Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee,” effectively determine how taxpayers pay physicians for Medicare services. These features of Medicare — heavily subsidized premiums and unlimited access — make the program highly popular with seniors. On average, seniors receive more than three dollars in benefits for every dollar they pay into Medicare. But Medicare’s lack of Canadian- or British-style controls has turned the program into an oppressive fiscal burden. Today we spend more on Medicare than we spend on national defense. The program is the biggest driver of our deficits and debt. The Medicare hospital trust fund is already sending out more money than it takes in; according to its trustees, it will run out of other people’s money in 2026. Medicare Advantage highlights socialized medicine’s biggest lie: that ‘Medicare for All’ expands Americans’ health-care ‘rights.’ The Anglo-Canadian version of socialized medicine tramples on individuals’ rights to seek the care and coverage that they want. The U.S. version tramples on Americans’ right to the fruits of their own labor, conscripting them through taxes and debt to fund an unsustainable system.”