RSS

Category Archives: law

Obama administration lifts 32-year-old ban on gay / bisexual men donating blood

Will S.:

A similar ban-lifting happened up here two years ago…

This is the same sort of thing, once again: politics trumping public health considerations. It reveals progs for the monsters they are, more concerned about the feelings of some folks than the health of everyone else…

Originally posted on Wintery Knight:

Breitbart News reports.

Excerpt:

The Obama administration, more interested in pleasing its LGBT supporters than in protecting the health of the general public, is proposing “new rules” through the FDA that would terminate the 32-year-old ban on blood donations from gay and bisexual men.

Hilariously, the FDA would still ban gay men from donating if they confess to having sex with a man within a year before donating blood.

The FDA did admit that “some individuals knowingly donate despite the deferral.”

[…]The FDA decided that the MSM group (men who have sex with men) was much less of a risk than those in the commercial sex work (CSW) and injection drug use (IDU) groups, even though the agency reported, “In 2010, male-to-male sexual contact accounted for 63% of newly diagnosed HIV infections among adults, and 78% of newly diagnosed HIV infections in men, indicating that male-to-male sexual contact remains associated with…

View original 354 more words

 

Canada’s neo-con regime equates calls to boycott Israel with anti-Semitism; threatens to use ‘hate-crime’ legislation against organizations encouraging boycotts

Incredible…

The Harper government is signalling its intention to use hate crime laws against Canadian advocacy groups that encourage boycotts of Israel.

Such a move could target a range of civil society organizations, from the United Church of Canada and the Canadian Quakers to campus protest groups and labour unions.

If carried out, it would be a remarkably aggressive tactic, and another measure of the Conservative government’s lockstep support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

While the federal government certainly has the authority to assign priorities, such as pursuing certain types of hate speech, to the RCMP, any resulting prosecution would require an assent from a provincial attorney general.

And it would almost certainly be challenged under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, civil liberties groups say.

The government’s intention was made clear in a response to inquiries from CBC News about statements by federal ministers of a “zero tolerance” approach to groups participating in a loose coalition called Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS), which was begun in 2006 at the request of Palestinian non-governmental organizations.

Asked to explain what zero tolerance means, and what is being done to enforce it, a spokesperson for Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney replied, four days later, with a detailed list of Canada’s updated hate laws, noting that Canada has one of the most comprehensive sets of such laws “anywhere in the world.”

The BDS tactic has been far more successful for the Palestinians than armed struggle. And it has caught on internationally, angering Israel, which reckons boycotts could cost its economy hundreds of millions of dollars.

Just last month, 16 European foreign ministers denounced the “expansion of Israeli illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories,” demanding that any imported goods originating in the settlements be distinctly labeled.

But Canada, a country where the federal Liberal and NDP leaders also oppose BDS, appears to have lined up more strongly behind Israel than any other nation.

In January, Canada’s then foreign affairs minister, John Baird, signed a “memorandum of understanding” with Israeli authorities in Jerusalem, pledging to combat BDS.

It described the movement as “the new face of anti-Semitism.”

A few days later, at the UN, Canadian Public Security Minister Steven Blaney went much further.

He conflated boycotts of Israel with anti-Semitic hate speech and violence, including the deadly attacks that had just taken place in Paris on the Charlie Hebdo magazine and a kosher supermarket.

Blaney then said the government is taking a “zero tolerance” approach to BDS.

Coming as it did from the minister responsible for federal law enforcement, the speech alarmed groups that have, to varying degrees, supported boycotts, believing them an effective tool to bring about an end to Israel’s occupation and colonization of the West Bank, and its tight grip on Gaza.

Some of these groups had noted that the government changed the Criminal Code definition of hate speech last year, adding the criterion of “national origin” to race and religion.

This change could, they feared, effectively lump people who speak against Israel in with those who speak against Jews.

Micheal Vonn, a lawyer for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, says the expanded definition is clearly “a tool to go after critics of Israel.”

Canadian civil liberties groups maintain that boycotts are a long-recognized form of political expression, and therefore constitutionally protected.

In March, the Canadian Quakers wrote a letter to Foreign Affairs Minister Rob Nicholson, expressing concern about Blaney’s speech and protesting the label of anti-Semitism.

Nicholson’s response merely repeated the talking points first used by Blaney at the UN, and the government’s vow not to tolerate boycotts.

But in response to specific questions about what “zero tolerance” of BDS means, and how it will be enforced, Blaney aide Josee Sirois gave CBC News a much clearer picture of the government’s intent.

“I can tell you that Canada has one of the most comprehensive sets of laws against hate crime anywhere in the world,” wrote Sirois.

She highlighted what she termed “hate propaganda” provisions in the Criminal Code criminalizing the promotion of hatred against an identifiable group, and further noted that “identifiable group” now includes any section of the public distinguished by “among other characteristics, religion or national or ethnic origin.”

She also referred to Criminal Code provisions requiring that a judge consider hate, bias or prejudice when sentencing an offender.

“We will not allow hate crimes to undermine our way of life, which is based on diversity and inclusion,” she concluded.

So our ‘Conservative’ government wants to out-do progs in championing ‘diversity’, ‘inclusiveness’, and ‘hate crime’ legislation, which they are bent on using to attack freedom of speech, conflating opposition to Israel’s actions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with anti-Semitism, wanting to show the world that they’re the Tribe’s biggest ‘Shabbos goy’.

I’m pretty much neutral on the Israel/Palestine issue, but that’s not the point; this is a breathtakingly audacious, arrogant, totalitarian attack on freedom of speech, and a smear against anyone who has legitimate issues with Israel’s policies. I’m not a big fan of leftists like Quakers or the United Church of Canada, etc., and I question the ultimate effectiveness of boycotts, but that’s besides the point; it’s a legitimate act, that people should, in a liberal democracy, be free to support and encourage. Israel doesn’t have any inherent ‘right’ to the world’s business; if countries and individuals decide to boycott them, there’s nothing wrong with that; it certainly isn’t necessarily motivated by hatred and bigotry – but so what if for some, it is? Apparently neo-cons are ready to join progs in punishing ‘thought-crimes’…

And it’s pretty stupid, too – this will not stand up in court; it’s sure to be overturned – and it will give the Liberals and NDP a big hammer to use against the government, from now till the next election.

Stupid and evil.

I’m tempted to vote Liberal or NDP next time around, rather than simply not voting as per my usual practice, just on principle, against this government, to try to hasten its demise.

*Update: They’re denying it

 

Thomas Sowell: if we care about poverty and crime, then we should encourage marriage

Will S.:

This is one reason why, rather than getting out of the marriage business, governments should be encouraging real, proper, Marriage 1.0. (Which would of course necessitate getting rid of Marriage 2.0, by getting rid of no-fault divorce, alimony, and so on.)

Originally posted on Wintery Knight:

Economist Thomas Sowell Economist Thomas Sowell

My favorite economist Thomas Sowell writes about poverty and crime in National Review.

Excerpt:

The “legacy of slavery” argument is not just an excuse for inexcusable behavior in the ghettos. In a larger sense, it is an evasion of responsibility for the disastrous consequences of the prevailing social vision of our times, and the political policies based on that vision, over the past half century.

Anyone who is serious about evidence need only compare black communities as they evolved in the first 100 years after slavery with black communities as they evolved in the first 50 years after the explosive growth of the welfare state, beginning in the 1960s.

You would be hard-pressed to find as many ghetto riots prior to the 1960s as we have seen just in the past year, much less in the 50 years since a wave of such riots swept across…

View original 397 more words

 

Anti-vaccination demonstration, circa 1900

There were skeptics of mandatory vaccination back then…

Museum of Health Care; Kingston, Ontario.

Museum of Health Care; Kingston, Ontario.

 
4 Comments

Posted by on April 17, 2015 in Canada, law

 

Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?

So I’m in a restaurant, sitting in a booth waiting for some friends, trying to access the internet on my laptop, finding the restaurant has no wireless (what kind of place still doesn’t have that? Oh well, whatever…)

A boyfriend/girlfriend couple is sitting next to me, trying to calmly discuss the prospect of marriage, clearly initiated by her. I learn they’ve been dating for two years, and are planning to move in together this summer; she’s arguing in favour of marriage, he’s telling her he’s open to the idea, but just isn’t sure yet, and can’t give her an answer, at this time, but maybe by the time they’re ready to move in together, he’ll know. She’s arguing that it’s the logical progression of their relationship. He’s not so sold on the idea, it seems.

And why would he be? Nothing suggests they’re Christians, committed to waiting for sex until they’re married; I’m sure they’ve already slept together, spent nights at each other’s places. She’s already about to give him the other thing that comes with most marriages – living together – without absolutely requiring that he first ‘put a ring on it’, so to speak, so what’s in it for him?

Now, with Ontario following British common law, in regards to marriage, eventually the government will declare them married, once they’ve lived together already for some period of time (I forget how long it is), whether or not they put in the effort to make it official before then by signing the papers either at a wedding service or at a Justice of the Peace.

So he’s right, there isn’t any point; they’ll end up married whether they do it deliberately or not.

They’ll just miss out on a potential Bridezilla having ‘her day’, as they say.

No biggie.

But, given that they’re both worldly folks anyway, I’m sorry he’s going to end up, if he is foolish enough to indeed move in with her, married to her in the eyes of the law. Right now, he’s got it made: he gets his jollies, but doesn’t risk divorce, alimony, etc. He’d be a fool to change that.

 
16 Comments

Posted by on March 14, 2015 in Brave New World Order, Canada, law

 

Oath of allegiance to Queen stays as requirement to obtain Canadian citizenship

Good news.

Would-be Canadians will have to keep taking an oath to the Queen after the Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday refused to hear a challenge to the citizenship requirement.

The decision by the top court leaves intact an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling that upheld the “symbolic” oath.

At issue is a provision in the Citizenship Act that requires would-be citizens to swear to be “faithful and bear true allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors.”

The challenge to the requirement was launched by Michael McAteer, Simone Topey and Dror Bar-Natan — longtime permanent residents who want to obtain citizenship but, for different reasons, do not want to pledge allegiance to the monarchy.

Informed of the Supreme Court decision that ends the battle, McAteer, 81, of Toronto, said he was disappointed but not surprised.

“It’s been a long haul,” said McAteer, a staunch republican who came to Canada from Ireland 51 years ago.

“(But) I feel the same: If the oath stands, then I won’t take Canadian citizenship.”

Topey, a Jamaican Rastafarian, said her religion forbids taking an oath to the Queen. Bar-Natan, an Israeli, argued that the oath represents entrenched privilege he opposes.

Hey, if’n y’all don’t like it, go back to Ireland, Jamaica, and Israel, and get the fuck out of Canada!

 
38 Comments

Posted by on February 26, 2015 in Canada, good news, law, The Kulturkampf

 

Conservative MP’s bill to ban sex-selection abortions is defeated

Will S.:

WK thinks this is unfortunate. I understand that perspective.

I beg to differ, in that I don’t want fetuses which are members of particular groups, whether females, or racial minorities, or whatever, to receive protection, while others do not.

I am not a utilitarian, nor a femiservative, femingelical; no asinine comparisons of saving some children on a bus for me. I oppose the murder of all unborn, and want equal protection under the law for all fetuses, and nothing less than that.

Originally posted on Wintery Knight:

Conservative MP Fiona Bruce Conservative MP Fiona Bruce

The leftist BBC reports.

Excerpt:

MPs have defeated a cross-party bid to clarify in law that abortion on the grounds of gender alone is illegal in the UK.

Conservative MP Fiona Bruce, who spearheaded the move, said the law was being “interpreted in different ways”.

But her proposal was defeated by 292 to 201. A review of the extent of sex selective abortion was agreed to.

[…]Her amendment would not have changed the law, but sought to update 1967 legislation that was drafted before it was possible to identify the sex of a foetus.

[…]Making the case for the change, the Congleton MP said her amendment would “clarify beyond doubt in statute that sex selective abortion is illegal in UK law”.

Now you might think that the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats would be against killing unborn girls, just because they are the “wrong” sex.

View original 403 more words

 
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 364 other followers