The Canadian Human Rights Commission has been petitioned by Ann Coulter (political pundit from the USA) to investigate the promotion of hatred against her by the University of Ottawa provost. After a letter was circulated by the provost, the ensuing riots and bedlam forced Miss Coulter to hire bodyguards for her safety and the University of Ottawa to cancel her speech due to actual threats to her safety. The U of O student union also had a hand in the incitement of hatred as they place placards about the campus calling for action against Miss Coulter.
The HRC's mandate calls for investigation when hatred is promoted against identifiable groups. Is there actionable evidence here with the riots and threats of personal violence?
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Looking for the Good
Well Demcare has passed in the USA!! Hooray for us!! I am now restricted by federal law on what medical services my insurance savings plan can pay for. But that's okay because the faceless central authority should determine what is good for my health, right? If I do spend money on these 'unapproved' health costs, I will be charged a 20% penalty. So what have we just learned class? In this 'health care for all' bill is a tax increase of 20% on medical procedures.
So, here's the good: First, I will save $2,500 each year on health costs. President Obama promised!! Second, well there is no second. I want my $2,500!
So, here's the good: First, I will save $2,500 each year on health costs. President Obama promised!! Second, well there is no second. I want my $2,500!
Monday, March 22, 2010
A Point of Order
I watched as the Democrats voted to secure more power for the Federal Government last night. I was not surprised because politicians love power and they love to shove it down your throat. My gripe is with the speech Bart Stupak gave when defending his vote to nationalize abortion funding. Remember, this is the 'pro-life' Democrat. He trotted out the canard that being pro-life means you stand for life outside the womb. This is the same argument that Jim Wallis, Tony Campollo, Ron Sider and some other Christians use to justify government programs that pay for health insurance or whatever other benefit government can give in the name of helping 'the poor'.
My gripe is this: first, the argument assumes that the opponents want what is bad for people. Not only is this slanderous, but it is also very unchristian. Second, equating the active and planned killing a defenseless child with policy decisions is beyond intellectual dishonesty. It is bearing false witness. Last night, someone on the floor of the House called Stupak a baby-killer. CNN sniffed and harrumphed as the lack of decorum. However, I do not remember such tut-tutting by the newscasters when the Democrats were accusing the Newt Gingrich led congress of wanting to kill old people and starve children with their budget allocations during the 1990's.
Perhaps the abortion opponents have had too much decorum by claiming to be 'pro-life'. Now that the language has been lost to muddled political-speak, the abortions foes should re-brand themselves as 'anti-murder'.
My gripe is this: first, the argument assumes that the opponents want what is bad for people. Not only is this slanderous, but it is also very unchristian. Second, equating the active and planned killing a defenseless child with policy decisions is beyond intellectual dishonesty. It is bearing false witness. Last night, someone on the floor of the House called Stupak a baby-killer. CNN sniffed and harrumphed as the lack of decorum. However, I do not remember such tut-tutting by the newscasters when the Democrats were accusing the Newt Gingrich led congress of wanting to kill old people and starve children with their budget allocations during the 1990's.
Perhaps the abortion opponents have had too much decorum by claiming to be 'pro-life'. Now that the language has been lost to muddled political-speak, the abortions foes should re-brand themselves as 'anti-murder'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
