jbg

Here we go again, and I don't expect much better from the West. Another day, another jihad murder (link to article). A gunman opened fire Saturday on a Copenhagen cultural center, killing one man in what authorities called a terror attack against a free speech event featuring an artist who had caricatured the Prophet Muhammad. The shooting, which also wounded three police officers, came a month after extremists killed 12 people at a satirical newspaper in Paris that had sparked Muslim outrage with its depictions of Muhammad. ******************** Lars Vilks, a Swedish artist who has faced numerous death threats for caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad, was one of the main speakers at Saturday's panel discussion, titled "Art, blasphemy and freedom of expression." He was whisked away by his bodyguards unharmed as the shooting began. William Safire, on December 11, 1980 said it perfectly except that time the context was Poland. Yesterday France, now Denmark. Safire said (link): "The last time anybody invaded Poland, a World War began. This time, the West is direly warning the Soviet Union that any movement of Soviet forces across the Polish border would be met with coordinated cries of anguish and nicely orchestrated hand-wringing." We are making a mistake by focusing on bringing justice to individual wrongdoers. The problem is "no go" zones in European cities and the spread of hate by imams. We must target such mosques in both the West and the Muslim world. What they are preaching is incitement and war. Also see related status (link).

Founders' intent is not good for citation of legal authority in oral argument at the trial level. It is very much alive as argument before any countries' highest court.

I called this a year ago. More calls for appeasement. Read my next post after the one you quoted. The world's reaction will be to weep. Far less than the reaction to similar actions by democracies such as Israel or the U.S. Unfortunately almost a year ago I was prophetic. William Safire, on December 11, 1980 said it perfectly except that time the context was Poland. As it is likely to be again in the not-to-distant future (link): The last time anybody invaded Poland, a World War began. This time, the West is direly warning the Soviet Union that any movement of Soviet forces across the Polish border would be met with coordinated cries of anguish and nicely orchestrated hand-wringing. Too bad. We're letting another free society go down the drain.

I don't know the content of legal ethics in Canada. I believe though that screening a judge based on the content of likely rulings is troubling if not unethical.

Thank you for this link. It warrants a separate thread (link). It is in the "Federal Politics" section though it could just as easily go in the U.S. and Canada" section.

I am writing about the issue of judicial activism in both of our countries, with the starting point being Argus' post on the "assisted suicide" decision. Courts in both countries have reached decisions with whose results I generally agree. The process should be abhorrent to any lover of freedom. While I personally favor assisted suicide, a court should not be the ones delineating overall meets and bounds. The Court should not, in effect, be saying "this is the kind of nation (or world) we want and then creating it by judicial decree. The kinds of lines drawn in the decision really belong to Parliament. Other decisions evince similar activism. Laws that plainly truncate free speech are upheld since the Court likes the result of being able to corral "hate speech." The rights of First Nations go well beyond any possible defensible text of Parliamentary laws, the British North America Act, the Charter or other elements of the constitution. In the U.S. it's no different. The Supreme Court, in the early 1900's struck down laws against child labor, and minimum wage laws, based on its social and economic view. It was rightly castigated for this in the famous United States v. Carolene Products Co. 304 U.S. 144 (1938), fn. 4 (link)for making policy, other than to protect minority rights, stating: "There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments, which are deemed equally specific when held to be embraced within the Fourteenth. **** After a salutory period where the U.S. Supreme Court confined itself to the protection of peoples who couldn't protect themselves using the democratic process, it returned to the area with Roe v. Wade. With scant textual support it struck down almost all abortion laws. Personally I am pro-choice. Some states such as New York and California already legalized abortion. To have that imposed by Court order was wrong. Similarly, in the other ideological direction the Supreme Court imposed "corporate free speech" in the Citizens United decision. Corporations exist only by the grace of each state's legislatures and I don't see any text in the Constitution giving them equal rights to me, who is typing away with "ten fingers." In short, I do not believe that the Supreme Courts of either of our lands should be legislating. They should be protecting peoples' rights against the tyranny of the majority, but not sculpting society.

I have stated and will continue to state that when the "Palestinians" place themselves in a position of warfare with the State of Israel, or Jewish or Western interests outside of the State of Israel they will be treated as combatants. That is one of the reasons that many Jews believe (I am one of them but cannot speak for Rue) that anti-Israeli positions are often disguises for anti-Judaism.

Shame on you for not admitting what the results of an Arab right of return would be.

Not if the negotiating demands of the Arabs are met. They wish to be able to flood Israel with the descendants of Arab refugees so as to swamp Israel's Jewish population. Under whatever handle iteration you choose, you take dead aim at Israel's existence as a Jewish state.

The only trouble is that you can vote for your perfect party, and even if that perfect party makes the governing coalition one can't be sure which ministry they're getting. They're getting a ministry or department, not a government.

At least the other one was smart even if diabolical.

Are you saying that all other peoples are entitled to their own state whereas the Jews must await its allotment?

It's a professional website. We are both in the same profession. And no I will not out him or any person whose real name I learn. Even ones who I fight with. That is simply not a decent way to behave.

You are ducking the issue; the right of the Jews to have a Jewish state. For Chrissakes, why are the Palestinians or the Poles for that matter entitled to national self-determination but not the Jews?

I am Jewish. Based on my familiarity with Jewish issues he reflects the views of many, though not all Jews. I haven't met him personally but I have visited his website. I know him to be Jewish.

Great parody.

You got me on that typo. Should have been "distinct." I don't know if you knew how to spell "mewling." As for some of the other things I pointed out maybe Canadian is your first language. That would be fine. You still haven't explained why Abraham is a "despicable maggot." As far as Israel's alleged desire to deprive the self-determination "right to millions of other people" you have failed to explain whether Israel has the right to respond to terror tunnels or rocket attacks. Last checked those were causes of war, which do give the right to occupy land. Aside from the beautiful but impractical Geneva Conventions victors in war sometimes expel the local populations. There are consequences to losing wars.

Isn't it interesting that we didn't hear many calls for PR from the usual suspects after the 1993 elections. The PCPC did not drop to 0.05% of the popular vote though they dropped to two ridings in Parliament. There has only been one election in modern times, 1984, where any party received over 50% of the popular vote, and even then just barely. When the rules favor Liberal power or victories, i.e. the 1960's (the NDP governed arm-in-arm with the Pearson minority), the 1970's under Trudeau, or the 1990's or early 2000's under Chretien there was no call for PR, at least fromt he posters on this thread pushing it or their real-world allies. Now, having lost the 2006, 2008 and 2011 elections, and the latter with a majority government, they want to change the rules. Interesting.

Might seems to make right for just about every other situation. Where are your posts berating the Chinese for their brazen takeover of Tibet? Or the Russians of the Kurile Islands, Crimea and now eastern portions of Ukraine?

Jordan sure is.

Do you really think that if these mythical "Palestinians" had done anything at all with the land on which the State of Israel sits, the Jews would have been able to return? The fact is that it laid fallow as deserts, swamps and battlegrounds/killing fields.

Even Chretien had a few good ones, such as Paul Martin. That didn't work out too well in the end. I don't know much about Kim Campbell's or John Turner's appointments. I am in the middle of reading On the Take, about the Mulroney years. His appointments don't seem so great.

Anyone who remembers the "Black September" of 1970 would know the extraordinary brutality of the upcoming actions. Jordan can be quite effective when it needs to be.

What I mean by "wasted votes" are ones that have no influence on the outcome. In both California and New York State the majority of the geography is Republican. The city centers are Democratic by margins that except in exceptional years give the Republicans no hope of carrying their state. If the elections were by popular vote Republicans would spend more time campaigning in "red" parts of New York than they do now in Ohio because of the winner-take-all system. Right now I would estimate that between 10% and 15% of the campaigning occurs in Ohio during an election year since it has a lot of Electoral votes and readily votes for either party. Ditto Florida. Except for fund raising gigs neither candidates come to New York since it's outcome is predetermined. If there were a popular vote New York's large suburban cities would be quite interesting.

I hope his first emphasis is on quality and judicial temperament, not finding sycophants.