Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Human Rights and the Culture of Death

The very fact that we are discussing incest as a possible human right illustrates again the Pandora's box of mischief opened by The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Globe and Mail editorial, The state has a place in this bedroom, Apr. 20).

Such legislation with its victim-promoting offspring has produced a plethora of laws, rules, regulations, and outright verbiage. Here are a few -- hate-crime laws, hate-speech laws, affirmative action, political correctness, fawning multiculturalism, enforced diversity, zero tolerance, thought police, sensitivity training, attitude re-education, social and language inclusion, describing anything displeasing as racist, ideological coercion, grievance promotion, conversation monitors, dialogue facilitators, and the excess of feel-good rules with weasel names created by control freaks, all designed to squeeze human thought into someone else's narrow view of the world.

Homosexuality was decriminalized on the grounds that the state should not interfere with the behaviour of consenting adults. Then, homosexual "marriage" by consenting adults. Abortion by a consenting adult (consent not sought from the person most affected). With consenting adults as the criterion, polygamy will soon be declared legal, and then incest, followed by removal of the minimum age of consent.

What then? If one believes in human rights and animal rights, what objection could there be to consensual bestiality? The recent homosexual parade in Madrid advocated just that. Or someone "marrying" his/her dog or goat? A political party in Holland advocates abolishing the age of sexual consent, legalizing bestiality, child pornography and pedophilia.

The Ontario Supreme court will soon declare that the laws against soliciting, pimping and operating a bawdy house violate the Charter of Rights guarantee to life, liberty and security of the person. Courts and human rights commissions do not deal in logic, the former thrives on paper-thin legal rationalization, the latter on slabs of feelings.

Does the state have any business interfering with consensual dueling? Or consensual murder-suicide pacts? Or assisting in the suicide of a consenting adult?

The Charter of Rights, as interpreted by our blinkered, with-it judges and bleeding-heart human rights commissars, is incrementally destroying the standards which made our civilization what it is. They are creating a culture of victimization, perversion and death.

Monday, April 6, 2009

Taser verses Stapler

Letter to the Toronto Star. Published April 4, 2009.

Re Victim was 'demonized' by RCMP, lawyer says (April 1):

Following their killing of Robert Dziekanski, the RCMP conducted a shameful investigation into his life. They sent investigators to Poland. This attempt to smear the victim cost the taxpayer $58,000.

Let's reverse the situation and investigate the mounties and their private lives. Did this quartet take breathalyzer tests that day? Does any of them have a record of assault, drunk-driving, wife-beating, child abuse and all the other things they investigated about their victim? In fact, such investigations did occur. The results further discredited certain RCMP officers.

Now that the RCMP has declared the stapler an offensive weapon, we should equip the mounties with this lethal device, and take away their tasers.

Of course, the Chiefs of Police advocate tasers. They accepted $100,000 from the manufacturer for their convention. It's time all our police forces at all levels got the public oversight so obviously lacking.