Posts
Monday, December 21, 2009
Saturday, December 19, 2009
David Suzuki makes no sense
Alberta Ardvark posted this video on his blog:
In the first part of the video Mr. Suzuki draws a comparison between the race to get to space and fighting global warming. He says that no one complained about the cost, but this is an irrelevant comparison. Lowering CO2 to the point that some scientists say that we need will cost trillions of dollars. If going to the moon cost trillions of dollars then yes people would complain about the cost.
He then goes on to say that going to space had positive unintended consequences, and he implies that so will decreasing CO2. Just because something is good doesn't mean that something else totally unrelated is also good.
P.S.
What is climate justice?
In the first part of the video Mr. Suzuki draws a comparison between the race to get to space and fighting global warming. He says that no one complained about the cost, but this is an irrelevant comparison. Lowering CO2 to the point that some scientists say that we need will cost trillions of dollars. If going to the moon cost trillions of dollars then yes people would complain about the cost.
He then goes on to say that going to space had positive unintended consequences, and he implies that so will decreasing CO2. Just because something is good doesn't mean that something else totally unrelated is also good.
P.S.
What is climate justice?
Friday, December 18, 2009
Gerry Nicholls on Canada in Copenhagen
President of Libertas Post, Gerry Nicholls, points out on CTV that Canada shouldn't care what people say about us around the world. He claims that Canada should care primarily about our own economic interests. Jean Lapierre is shocked that we should care more about jobs than about people's jobs than David Suzuki's good opinion.
see here
see here
Carolyn Bennett: Sex toys need to be regulated
Toronto MP Carolyn Bennett is pushing for a law that would regulate sex toys.
What ever happened to the Liberal Party that thought that the government should stay out of the bedroom? I guess this isn't Liberal Party policy, but still the Liberal Party use to stand for some liberties. Now it stands for government in all aspects of our life.
The article I linked above gives Ms. Bennett gushing approval for tackling an issue that makes many people "giggle." Personally I haven't giggled at the word penis or sex since I was 12, and I'm willing to bet most adults can say the same thing. No this is not an issue about sexual liberation, or if sex should be discussed in public. It is an issue about personal freedom of choice.
The case that the pro-sex toy regulators have is extremely thin. Ms. Bennett was lobbied by a couple of sex shop owners; neither of which appear to be scientists. You can find something admirable in believing something and fighting to fix problems, if you like. But I would prefer to admire someone who believes in something that has evidence.
Where are the thousands of people dying in the street due to their poisonous dildo? Where is this great pandemic that requires urgent action?
Oh I do believe that too much of this chemical will hurt you. Too much of anything will hurt you; too much oxygen and water will kill you. The question is if enough of that chemical exists in the sex toys and is soaked into the body to harm an adult. Nothing in this article indicates that there is, nor have I ever heard of a study that claims this (if you have please link it).
So with no data indicating there is a risk, why would even someone who thinks the State should be our nanny support this regulation? Unless it is that regulation has become an end of itself.
Days like this I am very glad MPs have no actual power.
What ever happened to the Liberal Party that thought that the government should stay out of the bedroom? I guess this isn't Liberal Party policy, but still the Liberal Party use to stand for some liberties. Now it stands for government in all aspects of our life.
The article I linked above gives Ms. Bennett gushing approval for tackling an issue that makes many people "giggle." Personally I haven't giggled at the word penis or sex since I was 12, and I'm willing to bet most adults can say the same thing. No this is not an issue about sexual liberation, or if sex should be discussed in public. It is an issue about personal freedom of choice.
The case that the pro-sex toy regulators have is extremely thin. Ms. Bennett was lobbied by a couple of sex shop owners; neither of which appear to be scientists. You can find something admirable in believing something and fighting to fix problems, if you like. But I would prefer to admire someone who believes in something that has evidence.
Where are the thousands of people dying in the street due to their poisonous dildo? Where is this great pandemic that requires urgent action?
Oh I do believe that too much of this chemical will hurt you. Too much of anything will hurt you; too much oxygen and water will kill you. The question is if enough of that chemical exists in the sex toys and is soaked into the body to harm an adult. Nothing in this article indicates that there is, nor have I ever heard of a study that claims this (if you have please link it).
So with no data indicating there is a risk, why would even someone who thinks the State should be our nanny support this regulation? Unless it is that regulation has become an end of itself.
Days like this I am very glad MPs have no actual power.
Rand Paul, Bailouts, and the Debt
Rand Paul, son of Congressman Ron Paul, is running for the Senate in Kentucky. In this speech he talks about the folly of the bank bailout, the need for term limits, the disastrous debt level, the need to balance the budget, and the Federal Reserve. What he says makes a lot of sense to me and I hope he gets the Republican nomination.
Iron Man defends Property Rights
I don't like reading too much ideological messages into works meant for entertainment. Those who argue that Harry Potter is left or right wing are pretty silly. Still the beginning of this clip warms my libertarian heart.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Let's give money to dictators, it's always worked before...right?
Kelly McParland at the National Post writes an excellent Column today. She (he?) points out that the assumption at Copenhagen is that poorer countries can be trusted to use the money allotted to them to fight climate change. I don't know about you but I'm not really willing to trust Hugo Chavez with my wallet.
Actually the history of foreign aid has demonstrated that we shouldn't be trusting them with our wallet. Money that was meant to help economic development has routinely been pocketed by tyrants and thugs. So why does anyone think that they can be relied on now?
When history has written the story of Copenhagen it won't be about the environment. It will be about the attempt of dictators to extort money from wealthy democracies.
Actually the history of foreign aid has demonstrated that we shouldn't be trusting them with our wallet. Money that was meant to help economic development has routinely been pocketed by tyrants and thugs. So why does anyone think that they can be relied on now?
When history has written the story of Copenhagen it won't be about the environment. It will be about the attempt of dictators to extort money from wealthy democracies.
Everything is Thatcher's fault
Lesley Riddoch, a columnist for the Scotsman, explores what is to blame for the decreased gap between male and female lifespan.
The main objective of most girls in our nominally equal, but actually macho society is to be slim and attractive to boys. Smoking, laxatives and bulimia are used as calculated aids in the endless battle for weight control.
Standing in a restaurant toilet queue lately, I heard two teenage girls calmly discuss the likelihood of being able to "chuck" their meals without everyone outside hearing.
Bulimia is not a strategy so much as it is a mental sickness. Ms. Riddoch's lack of compassion here is part of the problem for these girls. Actually it is not just men but women who do it to each other. The harshest people I know when it comes to a girl's looks are other girls. Women notice physical deficiencies in other women that a man has never heard of. Yes boys can be cruel but they are not the only ones. So please don't blame everything on the supposed "macho culture."
Scotland's obsession with football doesn't help. Girls don't value their own physical activity, because adult Scots don't.
This is just confusing. How is an obsession with sports leading to a lack of value towards physical activity? Just because the leading football/soccer leagues are male does not mean women are discouraged from joining their brothers in a pickup game.
Appearance has certainly become more important than action. And Scotland's drinking culture has been lapped up by girls, who see their right to get trashed as a perverse measure of gender equality. Perhaps life for young ladies is so boring and constrained in one walk of life, and so stressful and demanding in another, that getting drunk and behaving badly is the only way to escape the crushing boredom of low expectations.
Umm....no...I'm pretty sure they drink because it is fun. To assign some sort of deep motivation for getting drunk is to completely misunderstand why the vast majority of people get drunk. And in case you missed it, that reason is that it is fun. Besides the desire to escape boredom is a common youthful quest that crosses both genders. Ms. Riddoch is merely jumping up and down on what is clearly her own hobby horse.
But tempting as it is to blame ladette culture for the declining relative longevity of Scotswomen, it doesn't actually stack up.
Wait what...huh...what the hell is she talking about? Why did she just spend 90% of her column saying that women are all a bunch of weak willed drunks that are ruled by men? If not culture then who or what is to blame?
It takes 30-40 years to develop lung cancer, so the premature deaths of today were the young smokers of the 1970s and 1980s. About that time, much of working life collapsed, courtesy of Margaret Thatcher, and a generation of men was famously made unemployed and unemployable.
Ohhhhhhh! It is Maggie’s fault! That makes so much more sense. After all, an entire generation hasn't been working since 1979, which clearly causes women to smoke more cigarettes.
Ms. Riddoch I apologize for thinking you were a loony.
The main objective of most girls in our nominally equal, but actually macho society is to be slim and attractive to boys. Smoking, laxatives and bulimia are used as calculated aids in the endless battle for weight control.
Standing in a restaurant toilet queue lately, I heard two teenage girls calmly discuss the likelihood of being able to "chuck" their meals without everyone outside hearing.
Bulimia is not a strategy so much as it is a mental sickness. Ms. Riddoch's lack of compassion here is part of the problem for these girls. Actually it is not just men but women who do it to each other. The harshest people I know when it comes to a girl's looks are other girls. Women notice physical deficiencies in other women that a man has never heard of. Yes boys can be cruel but they are not the only ones. So please don't blame everything on the supposed "macho culture."
Scotland's obsession with football doesn't help. Girls don't value their own physical activity, because adult Scots don't.
This is just confusing. How is an obsession with sports leading to a lack of value towards physical activity? Just because the leading football/soccer leagues are male does not mean women are discouraged from joining their brothers in a pickup game.
Appearance has certainly become more important than action. And Scotland's drinking culture has been lapped up by girls, who see their right to get trashed as a perverse measure of gender equality. Perhaps life for young ladies is so boring and constrained in one walk of life, and so stressful and demanding in another, that getting drunk and behaving badly is the only way to escape the crushing boredom of low expectations.
Umm....no...I'm pretty sure they drink because it is fun. To assign some sort of deep motivation for getting drunk is to completely misunderstand why the vast majority of people get drunk. And in case you missed it, that reason is that it is fun. Besides the desire to escape boredom is a common youthful quest that crosses both genders. Ms. Riddoch is merely jumping up and down on what is clearly her own hobby horse.
But tempting as it is to blame ladette culture for the declining relative longevity of Scotswomen, it doesn't actually stack up.
Wait what...huh...what the hell is she talking about? Why did she just spend 90% of her column saying that women are all a bunch of weak willed drunks that are ruled by men? If not culture then who or what is to blame?
It takes 30-40 years to develop lung cancer, so the premature deaths of today were the young smokers of the 1970s and 1980s. About that time, much of working life collapsed, courtesy of Margaret Thatcher, and a generation of men was famously made unemployed and unemployable.
Ohhhhhhh! It is Maggie’s fault! That makes so much more sense. After all, an entire generation hasn't been working since 1979, which clearly causes women to smoke more cigarettes.
Ms. Riddoch I apologize for thinking you were a loony.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Canada could be the bad boy of Copenhagen
Gerry Nicholls at Libertas Post has some suggestions regarding Canada's strategy in Copenhagen:
* Leave a couple of tons of fresh Alberta tar sands on Denmark’s doorstep and ring the doorbell.
* Announce we plan to increase our greenhouse gas emissions, “just because we can”.
* Spice up the environmentalist protests in the streets of Copenhagen by unleashing a dozen or so hungry polar bears.
* During all meetings we should drink out of plastic bottles labelled “Melted Glacier Water.”
* Continually ask the question: “If global warming is such a problem how come it’s so darn cold outside?”
As amusing as these suggestions are there is a serious point to be made about Canadian foreign policy. Mr. Nicholls points out that Canada has traditionally acted, and thought of itself as, the nice guy of global politics. In normal society there are a lot of benefits to being a nice guy: people like you, are willing to help you out, and you can get satisfaction from kindness. These benefits don't really apply to the society of leviathans.
A Hobbesian state of nature does not exist nor has it ever existed (and Hobbes never claimed it did), but some evidence of the war of all against all can be seen in international politics. As much as some have tried to create international structures, there is still no law higher than the State. This means that there is no one to enforce the rules. States struggle against each other using game theories of force and manipulation.
In this sort of society the nice guy usually loses out.
Liberals have been bemoaning Canada's lost of standing on the international stage. Most Canadians will scratch their heads at this. At what point have we had a great deal of influence on the world stage? Please don't bore me with a recitation of the Suez Crisis. One moment of actual influence in a century hardly makes Canada a power to contend with. No Canada has no great reputation as a player, but really the only country that we need to have a good opinion of Canada is America.
So I fully endorse Mr. Nicholls' recommendations. They likely won't help anything, but it won't hurt either.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
Wildrose Alliance ahead in the polls
The National Post is reporting that the Wildrose Alliance would form the government of Alberta if the election was held tomorrow. It really is too bad that the election is two years from now. A lot can happen in two years and WA supporters should not open the champagne bottle yet. It doesn't look like Mr. Stelmach has anything going for him, but he has been underestimated before.
The next two years can be put to good use. The WA is a new party and they need to prove that they have the depth to form a government. Stephen Harper solved this problem in 2004 by recruiting former provincial ministers. But Danielle Smith and her rising party has to come up with their own solution.
Great job so far Ms. Smith, but the journey to power is far from over.
The next two years can be put to good use. The WA is a new party and they need to prove that they have the depth to form a government. Stephen Harper solved this problem in 2004 by recruiting former provincial ministers. But Danielle Smith and her rising party has to come up with their own solution.
Great job so far Ms. Smith, but the journey to power is far from over.
Vancouver stifles free speech for the sake of the Olympics
The Globe & Mail is reporting that a Vancouver gallery was forced to remove a mural that was anti-Olympic. The city claimed that it was graffiti but apparently murals have been displayed for a long time without complaint from the city. It was only when city officials didn't approve of the message being displayed did they take action.
The City of Vancouver's actions here are baseless. They are taking steps to protect the Olympic image in the face of significant local opposition. So let me ask you, what is more important? Free expression or a track and field competition? City officials should get their priorities straight.
The City of Vancouver's actions here are baseless. They are taking steps to protect the Olympic image in the face of significant local opposition. So let me ask you, what is more important? Free expression or a track and field competition? City officials should get their priorities straight.
Sexual Harassment and You
I have long said that the difference between a man being creepy and a man being charming is whether or not the woman is already attracted to them.
Watch the video that demonstrates this.
Watch the video that demonstrates this.
Parliament security bans free speech
The Toronto Star is reporting that Greenpeace t-shirts have been banned from Parliament Hill. This is in response to the illegal protest by Greenpeace earlier this week. Such an excuse is not a good enough reason to trample on the Freedom of Expression.
I'm no fan of Greenpeace, but I don't see why people wearing their t-shirts should not be allowed in Parliament. A spokesperson from the Speaker's office said that it was a routine precaution and went on to say:
"When someone is invited in as a member of the public in either the chamber or a committee, they're invited in as an observer, that's it," she said. "They're not a participant, they're an observer."
First of all you aren't invited into the chamber, we as the people have the right to see what our Parliament is doing. Yes when we do visit we must understand that we are observers, but how does wearing a t-shirt make you a participant? Is it because of the political message of the shirt? I own several t-shirts that make political statements, including one that mimics the Coca-Cola logo by saying "Enjoy Capitalism." Does wearing that shirt make me a participant?
No of course not, the reason is because members of that organization pissed off Parliament's security. They made them look incompetent, so they are cracking down on anyone who may be associated with Greenpeace.
It should be pointed out that not everyone wearing a Greenpeace shirt is a member of Greenpeace. My shirt that I mentioned before is a Bureaucrash shirt, but I have never been a member of Bureaucrash. I wear the shirt, like many that wear Greenpeace shirts, because I support the organization (and find the shirt amusing). Basically Parliament security is accusing Greenpeace supporters of being troublemakers just because they support Greenpeace.
Actually maybe it isn't about the supporters of Greenpeace but the message. The Star article said that a reporter was allowed to enter with a Greenpeace shirt if she agreed to turn it inside out. So obviously they aren't trying to exclude Greenpeace supporters. It is the message of Greenpeace that they are trying to keep out; not dangerous individuals that could disrupt Parliament, but the ideas that Greenpeace represents.
I'm no fan of Greenpeace, but I don't see why people wearing their t-shirts should not be allowed in Parliament. A spokesperson from the Speaker's office said that it was a routine precaution and went on to say:
"When someone is invited in as a member of the public in either the chamber or a committee, they're invited in as an observer, that's it," she said. "They're not a participant, they're an observer."
First of all you aren't invited into the chamber, we as the people have the right to see what our Parliament is doing. Yes when we do visit we must understand that we are observers, but how does wearing a t-shirt make you a participant? Is it because of the political message of the shirt? I own several t-shirts that make political statements, including one that mimics the Coca-Cola logo by saying "Enjoy Capitalism." Does wearing that shirt make me a participant?
No of course not, the reason is because members of that organization pissed off Parliament's security. They made them look incompetent, so they are cracking down on anyone who may be associated with Greenpeace.
It should be pointed out that not everyone wearing a Greenpeace shirt is a member of Greenpeace. My shirt that I mentioned before is a Bureaucrash shirt, but I have never been a member of Bureaucrash. I wear the shirt, like many that wear Greenpeace shirts, because I support the organization (and find the shirt amusing). Basically Parliament security is accusing Greenpeace supporters of being troublemakers just because they support Greenpeace.
Actually maybe it isn't about the supporters of Greenpeace but the message. The Star article said that a reporter was allowed to enter with a Greenpeace shirt if she agreed to turn it inside out. So obviously they aren't trying to exclude Greenpeace supporters. It is the message of Greenpeace that they are trying to keep out; not dangerous individuals that could disrupt Parliament, but the ideas that Greenpeace represents.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Has the healthcare debate in the US gone insane?
Brian Doherty at Reason thinks so.
Anytime that a Canadian says political debate in Canada is irrational and overly partisan, they should just take a good look at our neighbours to the south.
Anytime that a Canadian says political debate in Canada is irrational and overly partisan, they should just take a good look at our neighbours to the south.
Get her! She's not a witch!
Government can be insane sometimes and the law is no exception. In today's Globe & Mail there is a story of a woman being arrested for pretending to a witch. She is accused of having defrauded a lawyer out of a thousand dollars by claiming to be possessed by the ghost of the lawyer's dead sister.
She is clearly guilty of fraud. She said that she was something that she wasn't and was given money based on those false pretenses. So I don't understand why the police thought that she should be charged with this peculiar and little used law against pretending to have supernatural powers.
I once went to a lecture where the professor claimed that the civil court would be better at dealing with matters of justice than the criminal court. He pointed out that O.J. Simpson was not found guilty in a criminal court but was brought to some justice in a civil court. He also commented that codifying laws make for oddities and anachronism that brings about weirdness in the justice system. He said that we would be better off by returning to the pre-19th century legal system of common law tradition.
Maybe he was right.
She is clearly guilty of fraud. She said that she was something that she wasn't and was given money based on those false pretenses. So I don't understand why the police thought that she should be charged with this peculiar and little used law against pretending to have supernatural powers.
I once went to a lecture where the professor claimed that the civil court would be better at dealing with matters of justice than the criminal court. He pointed out that O.J. Simpson was not found guilty in a criminal court but was brought to some justice in a civil court. He also commented that codifying laws make for oddities and anachronism that brings about weirdness in the justice system. He said that we would be better off by returning to the pre-19th century legal system of common law tradition.
Maybe he was right.
Peter MacKay can be safely gotten rid of now
John Ibbitson makes a case for why Stephen Harper will refuse to kick Defense Minister MacKay out of cabinet, even if he deserves to be booted. Though Mr. Ibbitson may be right in his over all argument, I disagree with one of his points:
Third, and most important, Peter MacKay is a partner in the Conservative coalition. Don't forget that this government is in office only because Mr. MacKay agreed to merge his Progressive Conservatives with Mr. Harper's Canadian Alliance back in 2003. Firing Mr. MacKay would split the party.
In 2005 Peter MacKay threatened to split apart the Conservative Party. At the convention Scott Reid campaigned to change the leadership rules to a one member one vote system, instead of the current riding based electoral college. This was seen by Mr. MacKay, and others, as an attack on the PC section of the party. So in response Mr. MacKay threatened to lead a revolt.
It was a dramatic moment at the convention. It led to one of the media's favourite stories of Stephen Harper, his kicking a chair across a room in anger. Yet that was also four years ago and a lot has changed since then. The Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives are now very much entwined into a single party. The Conservative Party is no longer so weak that one man can split it apart.
The most significant change is that the Conservatives are in government, and they are unlikely to be out of government any time soon. Being securely in government is the greatest uniting factor for any political party. It means that loyalty will be awarded with patronage and dissenters will be left in the cold.
In short Mr. MacKay can no longer lead a revolt because he has nothing to offer his potential followers. His chances of becoming Prime Minister isn't exactly overwhelming, especially if he breaks away to start his own party. So there would be little opportunity for him to reward those that remain loyal to the old PC name.
If the Prime Minister really had to or even just wanted to, he could easily take the axe to Minister MacKay.
Third, and most important, Peter MacKay is a partner in the Conservative coalition. Don't forget that this government is in office only because Mr. MacKay agreed to merge his Progressive Conservatives with Mr. Harper's Canadian Alliance back in 2003. Firing Mr. MacKay would split the party.
In 2005 Peter MacKay threatened to split apart the Conservative Party. At the convention Scott Reid campaigned to change the leadership rules to a one member one vote system, instead of the current riding based electoral college. This was seen by Mr. MacKay, and others, as an attack on the PC section of the party. So in response Mr. MacKay threatened to lead a revolt.
It was a dramatic moment at the convention. It led to one of the media's favourite stories of Stephen Harper, his kicking a chair across a room in anger. Yet that was also four years ago and a lot has changed since then. The Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives are now very much entwined into a single party. The Conservative Party is no longer so weak that one man can split it apart.
The most significant change is that the Conservatives are in government, and they are unlikely to be out of government any time soon. Being securely in government is the greatest uniting factor for any political party. It means that loyalty will be awarded with patronage and dissenters will be left in the cold.
In short Mr. MacKay can no longer lead a revolt because he has nothing to offer his potential followers. His chances of becoming Prime Minister isn't exactly overwhelming, especially if he breaks away to start his own party. So there would be little opportunity for him to reward those that remain loyal to the old PC name.
If the Prime Minister really had to or even just wanted to, he could easily take the axe to Minister MacKay.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Israel as a Theocracy
The Israeli Justice Minister recently mused that the law should move towards the Torah. To be clear, he wasn't suggesting that laws should be inspired by the religious traditions. He was saying the Laws of the Torah should be the laws of Israel.
I would be frightened by this if it wasn't for the massive political backlash against those comments. In a world of oppression and cruelty, we don't need to see a democracy morph into a theocracy.
I would be frightened by this if it wasn't for the massive political backlash against those comments. In a world of oppression and cruelty, we don't need to see a democracy morph into a theocracy.
Bernier's Comeback!
My favourite former Minister may be back in Cabinet before Christmas, according to columnist Don Martin. I think that there is a strong case for the likelihood of Maxine Bernier's return. There has already been evidence of Stephen Harper rebuilding bridges with the popular MP.
Mr. Bernier has two advantages that makes him impossible for Mr. Harper to ignore him.
1. He has staying power. Even with the scandals of the last Parliament, Mr. Bernier has proven that he can win his seat and keep winning it.
2. He is from the Quebec City area. Any Conservative majority government is going to be partly built on Quebec City. A charming and well known Minister from the area could make all the difference.
So why is this such good news? Why am I excited about Minister Bernier? His videos demonstrate his deep understanding of Freedom and Responsibility and also there is his long time support for the flat tax. Such ideas are a welcome addition to the highest levels of government.
Mr. Bernier has two advantages that makes him impossible for Mr. Harper to ignore him.
1. He has staying power. Even with the scandals of the last Parliament, Mr. Bernier has proven that he can win his seat and keep winning it.
2. He is from the Quebec City area. Any Conservative majority government is going to be partly built on Quebec City. A charming and well known Minister from the area could make all the difference.
So why is this such good news? Why am I excited about Minister Bernier? His videos demonstrate his deep understanding of Freedom and Responsibility and also there is his long time support for the flat tax. Such ideas are a welcome addition to the highest levels of government.
Debate in Scotland about Prostitution
The Scottish Parliament is considering legislation that would increase the criminality of prostitution. The idea is to attack the "demand" for purchased sex. This law is based on a similar law recently passed in Sweden and would make it illegal to purchase or attempt to purchase sexual favours.
The Scotsman presents two different perspectives to the question: Should vice laws be tightened? (These are selected portions of the article)
Yes:
But that impact also directly affects the families of those involved and the communities where this appalling trade takes place.
In a great many cases, these communities will be living in a state of fear and anxiety because of the criminality that surrounds prostitution.
Organised crime plays a massive part in perpetuating prostitution in this country and elsewhere. Ruthless criminals see only profit in the sale of people for sex. They have no concept of the devastation they cause – if they have to control and ultimately ruin the lives of others then it is a price that has to be paid.
No:
THE "End Prostitution Now" campaign is unrealistic. We have seen similar strategies in the past, it's something that's been happening not just for decades, but millennia.
There have been various attempts to criminalise buyers and organisers of prostitution, and Glasgow City Council has been building towards this campaign since 1999. They have been looking for other local authorities to support them, but there is no consensus among councils on this issue.
Research suggests that the type of legislation being proposed will only increase the vulnerability of women – a review of the legislation in Sweden found that sex workers had been subject to increased violent attacks.
In Sweden, women have been forced to use their own private residences for selling sexual services, but often they are reported and then made homeless. If this legislation goes ahead here, it will see the indoors industry in Glasgow multiply enormously.
The Scotsman presents two different perspectives to the question: Should vice laws be tightened? (These are selected portions of the article)
Yes:
But that impact also directly affects the families of those involved and the communities where this appalling trade takes place.
In a great many cases, these communities will be living in a state of fear and anxiety because of the criminality that surrounds prostitution.
Organised crime plays a massive part in perpetuating prostitution in this country and elsewhere. Ruthless criminals see only profit in the sale of people for sex. They have no concept of the devastation they cause – if they have to control and ultimately ruin the lives of others then it is a price that has to be paid.
No:
THE "End Prostitution Now" campaign is unrealistic. We have seen similar strategies in the past, it's something that's been happening not just for decades, but millennia.
There have been various attempts to criminalise buyers and organisers of prostitution, and Glasgow City Council has been building towards this campaign since 1999. They have been looking for other local authorities to support them, but there is no consensus among councils on this issue.
Research suggests that the type of legislation being proposed will only increase the vulnerability of women – a review of the legislation in Sweden found that sex workers had been subject to increased violent attacks.
In Sweden, women have been forced to use their own private residences for selling sexual services, but often they are reported and then made homeless. If this legislation goes ahead here, it will see the indoors industry in Glasgow multiply enormously.
Who would have been stopped by the gun registry?
Rondi Adamson writes a worthy column about the gun registry at Libertas Post:
Gun registry doesn't make sense
It makes sense, on the 20th anniversary of the December 6 Montreal massacre, to remember the victims -- the dead and the wounded.
It makes sense to talk about violence against women, to talk about mental illness, the dangers of ignoring warning signs, as well as how to strike the balance between acting on those warning signs and not being alarmist.
But it makes no sense to use December 6 as a justification for keeping the long-gun registry.
Yet women’s groups and anti-gun activists areusing the anniversary for just that reason. After parliament voted, in early November, to repeal the registry, Alexa Conradi, president ofthe Federation des femmes du Quebec said, “Close to 20 years after the shooting, we seem to be forgetting why we decided to do this in the first place.”
The Montreal massacre may well have been the catalyst for the gun registry, but if the years since have shown us that it is expensive and ineffectual, does keeping it honour the dead -- or protect any future victims?
The gun registry would not have stopped Marc Lepine, though it may have forced him to register his semi-automatic rifle first.
Could NDP fortunes in Quebec mark the end of separatism?
It has long been said that Quebec politics does not operate under Left-Right competition but Federalist-Separatist competition. As much as I deplore the terms left wing and right wing, there is some truth to this.
The usual party cleavages are around the role of government. Even when parties are relatively similar in their conceptualization of government, they differ in the details of what they want government to do. Should this subsididy go to that person or that person? Should taxes be cut or should wealth transfer be increased? Should government regulate the personal habits of individuals, if so what habits should be regulated?
These debates take place in Quebec but their party system does not revolve around them. Instead their party system revolves around the question, should Quebec be independent?
On either the federal or provincial level, voters in Quebec cannot avoid this issue during elections. Even if you are voting for the PQ to support their health policy, you must be aware that you are voting for a separatist party.
The NDP have traditionally been squeezed out from this debate. The Liberals staunchly support federalism, the Conservatives usually support a more decentralized federalism, and the BQ support Independence. There isn't much room for the NDP to contribute. Even when they try they lack credibility because they have never held office at the federal level. The fourth party could hypothetically have influence on many areas of public policy, but what could they possibly do to influence a constitutional debate?
Yet for the past few years we have been witnessing a rise of the NDP in Quebec. Perhaps this is a sign that the old debate is beginning to lose its sizzle. Quebec voters who dislike Harper are looking for an alternative. They don't seem to like Mr. Ignatteiff much and in general they will "park their vote" with the BQ as a sort of damn all vote. Still the NDP are doing better in Quebec than I have ever known them to do. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that they are on the cusp of a breakthrough in Quebec. If so let us hope it comes at a cost to the BQ and to separatism in Quebec.
The usual party cleavages are around the role of government. Even when parties are relatively similar in their conceptualization of government, they differ in the details of what they want government to do. Should this subsididy go to that person or that person? Should taxes be cut or should wealth transfer be increased? Should government regulate the personal habits of individuals, if so what habits should be regulated?
These debates take place in Quebec but their party system does not revolve around them. Instead their party system revolves around the question, should Quebec be independent?
On either the federal or provincial level, voters in Quebec cannot avoid this issue during elections. Even if you are voting for the PQ to support their health policy, you must be aware that you are voting for a separatist party.
The NDP have traditionally been squeezed out from this debate. The Liberals staunchly support federalism, the Conservatives usually support a more decentralized federalism, and the BQ support Independence. There isn't much room for the NDP to contribute. Even when they try they lack credibility because they have never held office at the federal level. The fourth party could hypothetically have influence on many areas of public policy, but what could they possibly do to influence a constitutional debate?
Yet for the past few years we have been witnessing a rise of the NDP in Quebec. Perhaps this is a sign that the old debate is beginning to lose its sizzle. Quebec voters who dislike Harper are looking for an alternative. They don't seem to like Mr. Ignatteiff much and in general they will "park their vote" with the BQ as a sort of damn all vote. Still the NDP are doing better in Quebec than I have ever known them to do. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that they are on the cusp of a breakthrough in Quebec. If so let us hope it comes at a cost to the BQ and to separatism in Quebec.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Global warming sceptics should be taken seriously
Ms. May says that Mr. Harper doesn't get it. The truth is that she doesn't get it.
I am not what some may call a man made global warming denier. I am more of a sceptic. There is a lot of area that has to be studied in the scientific community before I'm willing to take a side. I'm sorry to those that say otherwise, but there are still serious people making serious criticisms of the conclusions that have been made. I am not willing to destroy the economy on a hunch.
Here is a quote from one of the articles I linked above. I think it sums it up nicely:
"I honestly don't know whether it is a big problem, a little problem or a medium problem. And I don't think the skeptics have proven that global warming is not a problem."
I am not what some may call a man made global warming denier. I am more of a sceptic. There is a lot of area that has to be studied in the scientific community before I'm willing to take a side. I'm sorry to those that say otherwise, but there are still serious people making serious criticisms of the conclusions that have been made. I am not willing to destroy the economy on a hunch.
Here is a quote from one of the articles I linked above. I think it sums it up nicely:
"I honestly don't know whether it is a big problem, a little problem or a medium problem. And I don't think the skeptics have proven that global warming is not a problem."
Friday, December 4, 2009
Coynes on the China incident
This pretty much sums up my opinion on the whole humiliating Canada just because you can thing...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)