Law Of Media Calculus

Oooooh yeah!

I love a good rant. Give the hippies Hell!

What an excellent scathing of the feminist twit!

No wonder they didn't print it.

that was great, refreshing!

Wow, I gotta have a cigarette.

Wow! Direct hits scored on the charter of rights, Trudeau and his henchmen, Islam, Buddhism,, Muslim terrorists, the NDP, Liberals, multiculturalism, feminism, the nanny state, and muslims again, all without reloading. Fun to read.

Best line: "If written today it would include a clause making the separation of paper and glass mandatory for all householders, every other Wednesday." As funny as that is, it is also 100% true.

And thats the problem with Relapsed Catholic. You never know how she REALLY feels.

Horny Toad

that was awe inspiring! Good work Kathy, and thanks!

Well said Kathy. Only problem I could see is that it is probably to much testoterone,not estrogen. None of these femnazis strike me as being exactly "lady" like :)

I like it when somebody sticks up for their own tradition. No mealy mouthed equivocation, just tell it like it is.

You're right Kathy, no way they print this. Idiots.

Kathy Shaidle gets out the spiritual "ROTO ROOTER" and gives the secularists a "plumbing job".

Wow! All I can say is wow! Great response Kathy.

Priceless! That's why I love free speech. A keeper.

Seriously Kathy, tell us how you really feel.

That certainly made my day:-)

As much as I am an atheist, I love the response! Hippies got deep fried.

High Fives, Kathy! Great rant!

Here's the insidious part from the Comrade Journalist at the Star:

"...when women's equality is enshrined in the charter etc., it's not a given in many religious institutions - What should the balance be between gender rights and intercession of the state and freedom of worship? Should they be worked out by individual faith groups? Why does 5,000 years of religious tradition trump equality rights?"

Let us note well here, by the plain import of her questions, the leftist journalist is perfectly willing for the State to intrude into religion, dictating to religions what may and may not be done; what must and must not be done; what may be believed and spoken; what may not be believed and spoken. All this in the name of "the good of the people", "the welfare of the state", or any other such leftist crypto-fascist platitude.

I'm not a leftist. And I despite the Charter - because it defines people, not as rational and free individuals, but as defined only within the attributes of a group.

The attributes have nothing to do with the freedom of the individual but with hereditary attributes. The Charter locks people into linguistic groups (French and English) and then politicizes these two groups; it gives the language political power.

Then, the Charter locks people into origin-groups; that's a group that defines its membership by their hereditary origin (ethnicity, religion). These groups then become politicizes; the group is authorized to make political decisions.

Nowhere in the Charter, is the individual defined as free and rational. They are trumped by group 'rights'.

So, much as I admire Kathy, I disagree with her particular criticism of the Charter. I fully agree with her rejection of the Charter, which is indeed a marxist, socialist rant which has nothing to do with freedom or rights of the individual.

I disagree also with the Toronto Star's view on 'women's equality'. What, exactly, does 'equality' mean? For example, we have Dion's idiotic view that equality means an equal number of men and women in parliament. Why? Why not focus on the expertise and reasoning capacities of our MPs? What has gender got to do with either, unless, you are assuming, in a hidden fashion, that gender defines both expertise and reasoning capacities? Are you doing that, Mr. Dion?

What does gender equality mean? Why do we have to have an equal number of men and women in various professions? Why?

As for cultural/religious beliefs - remember, they are made by man and can be undone by man. [Kindly be aware that the noun 'man' is gender neutral in this sentence.]

BUT - are they inviolate because our Charter privileges group rights over individual rights? Is it, or should it be the case, that one religion, that declares that women are the property of men and are worth only half the man - should this view be protected by the Charter? Should this group be asked to change this view or, are they protected by the Charter?

If this group insists that their women may not unveil for a driver's license photo or to vote, should this view be protected by the Charter? Again, the Charter privileges group beliefs and makes absolutely no evaluation about these beliefs - on whether/not these beliefs are functional in a modern society.

So- do any and all group-held beliefs and behaviour trump individual freedoms? Again, the Charter may state that 'women are equal' but it also privileges the group over any individual woman.

So?

"Why does 5,000 years of religious tradition trump equality rights?"

Because the former has guided us for five thousand freakin years, and the latter can not even be defined for the purpose of your stupid false dichotomy.

WTG Kathy, thanks for the bite of your flambe lunch; delicious!!

Religious belief is inviolate because no external law can possibly influence what people think. You need drugs and aversion therepy for that. This applies to Relapsed Catholic's beliefs as much as it does an Islamic terrorist's beliefs.

You can make *actions* punishible by laws. There is nothing you can do about beliefs. Look at how many religions have survived horrific persecution at the hands of state sanctioned terror over a thousand years: jews in the world, catholics in England, muslims in Spain.

The Catholic faith is immune to any law or charter Canada can possibly pass because the Kingdom of Heaven is not of this world. I also view the charter and its state endorsed immorality with distain.

I feel sorry for those who attempt to reconcile the cognitive dissonance. Nothing post-adolescent newspaper reporters (or pollsters) think about events is relevent. Why do they take themselves so seriously?

She said mean things about the Charter!! How could she? The Charter is sacred and anyone who defiles it and the Supreme Court that interprets it is a heretic and an apostate.

The only way she can possibly have absolution for this grievous offence is to pray for a novena to Saint Pierre de la Merde, and hope he hears her plea.