Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Is it an infringement of Privacy Rights?

Is it an infringement of Privacy Rights? I ask this because while researching the subject of my videos on youtube I discovered many spree killers just didn't drop from the sky.
In fact they were either diagnosed or treated for certain mental health problems. I would suggest that perhaps many tragedies could have been avoided by placing a note in a file that could be accessed by authorities. While I am ardent in my belief that there ought to be an unfettered right to own arms by law abiding citizens where does one draw a line? Would it be an invasion of privacy to have such information in a data base? I am not opposed to background checks where an individual is proved to be indeed law abiding before they purchase arms. Why not "Mentally fit"? say for instance they have a diagnosed personality disorder and a note comes up when their backgrounds are checked and the shop keep says no sale. Would it not also be fair for them to get a certificate from their doctor saying yae or nae. Of course I can see the room for abuse of this by certain people who have an agenda like the social re-engineering of society basically saying no one is mentally fit to own arms. I can also see that some people would just not see a mental health professional for their troubles for fear of being labelled. Sadly the governments of the past and present have used a simple solution to very complex problems.. "The Firearms Act" which has made it a criminal act to possess a firearm without a licence. There problem solved. right? Indeed, If this were true then Kimveer Gill would have not been able to obtain a firearm to carry out his crimes. He was also known by the mental health professionals yet no one seen fit to even say "Hey watch this guy". No instead the agenda is disarm everyone it's safer.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

"Polytechnique" A new film soon to be released

I am old enough to remember this day, I watched the news reports with horror. Up until this day I thought it never happened in Canada, we are such a peaceful people. When we get angry we write letters to the editor. I was even more amazed at the reaction of the Government of Kim Campbell.
"Gun Control" I didn't think it would ever happen in Canada. What appeared reasonable at the time soon turned into an absolute obscenity. However this is not the reason for this post. This post is to inform those not old enough to remember or perhaps were not born yet.

I produced these video my self. and can be found on youtube.

Friday, January 16, 2009

Over To The Dark Side

PETA and Terrorism

I wonder how many celebrity talking heads are aware of their activities? I wonder how many ordinary citizens are aware?

PETA is not what it appears to be.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

The Right to Keep Arms In Our Defence

I am a rights activist, therefore, I can't leave this topic alone. Every day we read in our News outlets about a "Gun Crime' of one type or another. It is followed by the usual hand wringing editorials and Calls for a ban on this type of firearm or another. With the usual "No one needs" this or that type of firearm. "They are no use for anything but killing people". Followed by editorial letters saying that guns are also used for other things. These statements are indeed both true. However as a law abiding citizen with no inclination to commit crimes of any sort must take issue with people wishing to remove an ancient Right because someone fancies themselves as a "bad ass gansta". The trouble with the "Ban Nutz " and gun control advocates is they fail to realize that on balance there are far more guns in the hands of people like myself than there are criminals. The mainstream media likes to sell papers and journalist love to have their columns read by we little people. So they use "Eye catching" words. Which will elicit a emotional response with their readers. The usual response is agreement with their point of view. Both the media and gun control camps would like to think that a simple solution is all that is needed to solve the gun crime problem. In our society when has a simple solution ever solved a problem? The chief ingredient of Gun Control is compliance with the law. In Canada we have some of the world's most restrictive gun laws but yet criminals continue to break the law and use guns to commit their crimes.

I think you might agree that every human being has a right to life. That every one has the right not to be gun downed in the streets for the fruits of their labours. I think you would also agree that every woman has to the right to walk the streets safely without being set upon by a rapist and equally has a right to her life and her virtue. Even a sex trade worker has a right to this. We in Canada inherit viz a viz our English colonial roots the ancient right to defend ourselves. Not only that we have long held the right to the means in order to do so, and not just any means but the most effective means.

This is the most basic human right we have! If you were to remove yourself from civil society and place yourself in the wild you would have to rely upon your survival instincts and use that fine intellect that humans possess in order to do that very thing. Nature has given every creature that creeps, crawls, slithers, or walks upon this great earth the ability to defend itself. Whether it is great speed or sharp teeth, venom, or horns, heck even plants have defences. When you consider that we frail humans who have to cover our skins with skins for protection and do not have built in defences like speed or big sharp teeth or do we? Indeed we do have a built in defence, it is this enormous brain we have. Guile, intellect and reason are our built in defences. We learnt to make tools for defence as well as offence. Whether it was a rock or pointy stick we fashioned the means to defend ourselves. In fact we became so adept at it we gave up eating left overs from other prey animals and began doing our own preying.

This keen intellect is also our greatest curse because along with it came the ability to reason. With that came politicians. In the words of Jimmy Cliff ("Politics" poli means people and "tics" are parasites. "the People's Tics". ) We as an animal are the only politicians on the planet, every other species does what it does and nobody gets excited about it. Humans on the other hand get excited when we exercise our intellects and dain not to be prey of other human predators.

We as a species have fashioned tools that are extraordinary at both defence and offence. Offence being the ability to put food on our tables. Defence being that we can keep others from taking both life and property from us. There is not a Government on the face of the earth that has the right to say what I or you may use to defend ourselves. Yet they do try, and many of my fellow humans have decided that this is ok. As the Bible puts it, "And man shall beat his swords into plough shears and their spears into pruning hooks" But what it fails to say is that those that did end up ploughing and pruning for those that did not. Or in our case public protection is best left to the professionals "Police" and " soldiers".

Have you ever said to yourself " There is never a cop around when you need one.", Why would your safety be left to those that are never around when they are needed most?

It really doesn't matter what your neighbour has in his home, whether it is a single shot 22 or Barret 50 cal BMG. As long as he never uses it to harm you why would you care? You don't care what they and their significant other get up to on a Saturday night when they are alone behind closed doors so why would care what means of defending their home and family they have? Why can't we take the the approach we take with with everything else, the "If it doesn't affect me." attitude that Canadians are famous for.

The truth about gun control is quite simple. It only regulates the people you need to worry the least about and leaves the ones that you need to worry about alone. Gun Control gives, every thug and n'rr do well a government guarantee that their victims are unarmed and defenceless. Which in the terms of the natural world makes them the apex predator and the fittest to survive.

Ivison: Ontario is becoming an increasingly Orwellian province

John Ivison, National Post Published: Friday, January 09, 2009 Chytilova for National Post

It seems positively Orwellian that a private conversation in a bar can be taken down surreptitiously by a third party and used as evidence in a quasi-judicial hearing -- but that is the reality of life in a province that is under increasingly intrusive surveillance.

Readers with long memories may remember that a group of journalists was booted unceremoniously from the popular downtown Ottawa watering hole D'Arcy McGee's on a quiet Monday night last February. There was no warning, no incident -- just no more beer.

It turned out a liquor inspector working for the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario had satisfied himself that the revellers were intoxicated and told the bar's manager that he was filing a report that would put D'Arcy's liquor license in jeopardy -- hence the beer yanked from the hot, clammy hand of one of my bemused colleagues.

The report was filed in the fall and D'Arcy's decided to contest its findings. As the bar's manager, Kevin Ferby, told me at the time, he felt the inspector was "overzealous" and had "overreacted". "The law is there to protect extremes and there were no extremes here," he said.

I was called as a witness this week at a hearing in front of two members of the board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission -- and the experience was surreal. The AGCO is a unique organization, in that it decides who gets a liquor license, then enforces their operation through liquor inspectors. If the organization decides to proceed with charges, the AGCO appoints legal counsel and the case is heard by two AGCO board members. Theoretically, each stage of the process is independent of the other, though defendents say the cards are often stacked against them.

It gets worse -- unlike a criminal court, where the prosecution has to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, to a high evidentiary standard, at an AGCO hearing, the burden of proof is much lower -- on the balance of probability -- as is an evidentiary standard that allows the use of hearsay.

In the D'Arcy's case, the prosecuting lawyer cited the Post article, in which I had described members of our band as being "moist and garrulous" , if not quite "tired and emotional", as an admission that we were all intoxicated -- which is an offence under the Liquor License Act. I conceded that we were in high spirits but rejected the notion of intoxication, which according to the Ministry of Government Services' own server training program means the customer is speaking too loudly, slurring, sweating and losing balance.

"You had to repeat yourself several times, did you not?" the lawyer asked.

"Yes but that happens all the time. You might have noticed I have the hint of an accent," I replied, in my strongest west Scotland brogue.

By this time things had proceeded from farce, as the lawyer flailed away in her attempts to make me admit we were all full of loudmouth soup, or something more sinister.

"As regards the subject of your conversation, is it possible the conversation was of a sexual nature?" the lawyer asked.

"Excuse me," I replied, taken aback.

"Is it possible the conversation was of a sexual nature?"

"I have no idea."

"Is it possible?"

"I have no idea. Is this relevant?" I asked.

"Your job here is to answer the questions. I will do the asking," she said, curtly.

So there you have it. It seems that not only was a public servant sitting in the shadows studying us, he was also eavesdropping on our conversation, so that he could include its contents in a report that could become a public document once the board members pronounce on whether D'Arcy's was in breach of its licence.

I have no idea whether I am identified by name or the precise nature of the allegation -- I wasn't allowed to listen to the inspector's testimony.

What is clear is that Ontario's beer police are running amok -- the number of licence suspensions has increased more than 60% in the province over the course of this decade. I was inundated with anecdotes to this effect from readers after the last article. Take the case of the Ottawa bar where a server refused a clearly inebriated customer, only for an inspector to pop up and tell her the man was now her responsibility and she was obliged to either escort him home or sober him up with a free meal.

Bad enough that a public employee, who is apparently unaccountable to the people, can temporarily close down a wealth-creating private business like D'Arcy's, which employs 75 people, on the extremely subjective basis that a couple of 40-something suits "appeared to be intoxicated". Much worse that government is encroaching on the rights of the individual to the extent that a supposedly private conversation becomes a matter of public record. The Ministry of Truth would have approved.

Friday, January 9, 2009

Speak Up

take a few moments to do this survey. and let your government know what you think is important.
special interest groups get to be heard why can't WE as citizens

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Happy New Year

I hope everyone had a happy holiday. Christmas is such a fun holiday when there are small children just discovering the magic of the season. I know my nephew's were wired for sound, driving their parents nuts with their excitement.

With the new year comes great hope, at least I hope it does. Though out in the real world things look grim at this point. Our brave leader in Ontario still hasn't clued into how an economy works yet and still isn't showing any signs of the "lights" going on in his head. Mr McGuinty is still looking at the tax payer as some sort of domestic farm animal to be milked. That Government spending fuels the economy and not spending on the part of consumers.

In order for consumers to be able to spend money and drive our economy they need jobs, which will provide them with money. It is not the business of Government to directly provide these jobs nor is it the business of Government to drive jobs away from our Province. In effect this is what the McGuinty Government is doing. Ontario has the highest taxes next to Quebec. This includes Corporate taxes. Let's face it folks companies are not in the business of providing jobs, however they are in the business of generating profits. Employees are a cost of business not necessarily the net end result. While there are many factors in why a business locates in one place over another, one of the deciding factors is can it make a profit is the single deciding factor. If wages and taxes eat up a bottom line the only thing a company can do to salvage its bottom line is reduce wages. Only because it can't reduce the taxes, among other uncontrollable expenses. It always falls onto the shoulders of the Workers to bear the brunt of this reality.

What can McGuinty do? The short answer is Cut Taxes. And I do mean Cut taxes severely across the board. The corporations should not be the only beneficiaries of a tax cuts ordinary people should too. If we go into a deficit because of tax cuts so be it. It is better to go into deficit that way than by expanding the Governments spending and still squeezing the tax payers. The Government will then have to make tough decisions on the streamlining of services.
A good start would be repealing useless laws. Laws must be enforced and all that requires money. Another idea would be the reducing of the Provincial Cabinet the number of highly paid Ministers and the number of departments. Eliminate commissions ,Like the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Another would be to scrap the Human Rights Commission.

There are many ways in which the Government may save money they just have to have the will. With over regulation comes big bureaucracy which takes big $$$$ to operate.
Corporations downsize all the time in hard times why can't our governments?