Perhaps the RCMP arrests of the Islamofascist terrorist cell in Toronto and the (thanks to Liberal idiot Comrade McGuinty) successful Indian extremist terrorism in Caledonia is helping many Canadians see more clearly on the subject of terrorism and the necessity of protecting freedom by force when necessary.

well, I might be a tad more supportive if it didnt take 20 friggin years for the air india enquiry to happen for instance.

we peg the terrorists and the canadian officialdom habit of DOING NOTHING kicks in.

Having traveled in the Great White North quite a bit, I find it difficult to believe that Canada as a whole is getting so wussified. Can Canada be so far gone that it forgets what it took to tame that endless wild country? I don't think so.

Much like Australia, I think the wild men of the north just need a little wakeup call...maybe this terrorist cell is it. I hope your wakeup call isn't as violent as ours was. Then you can limit your homegrown moonbats to latte enclaves and the Media as we have.

What was the context of Franklin's statement? Greer's statement is, not surprisingly, hyperbolic.

At some point, of course, freedom and security are competeing values. A terrorist's freedom to operate conflicts with our right to security-and not just theoretically. Given the potential magnitude of the havoc they can wreak there ought to be a lower standard of proof required before the state can invade the privacy of suspected terrorists vis a vis ordinary
criminals.

Security is the result when the state employs rational, principled and vigilant use of the state's authority to investigate and arrest those who are planning to terrorize the citizens of the state.

The Franklin quote is a little garbled.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I like "latte enclaves," though. Very much. I shall save that one for a rainy day.

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue."

- Anonymous (sometimes mis-attributed to Barry Goldwater)

I find it ironic that the very thing we absolutly detested and despised a few short years ago, we are now demanding for our "protection". I am of course talking about the removal of our liberties and a larger police and security presence in various aspects of our lives and society. This is the early stages of the establishment of Orwell's "Big Brother".
We see in North America how monitoring of email and phone conversations is now routine and accepted. We see how camera presences in all public places is becoming commonplace and probably many private places as well. Technology is only going to improve these methods with time.
Don't get me wrong, I am glad that they are agressively fighting the war on terror on many fronts and I hope we win.
If we "win", however we define that in the end, we will have this enormous "police state" presence set up that we demanded. This kind of surveilance network has to be busying itself doing something to continue to justify the funding to keep it going so who becomes the targets in the gunsights of the security apparatus at that time? Christians? Jews? Unions? Some ethnic entity? You? Me?
Just food for thought.
Daniel

I know I'm not willing to give up any freedoms for the perceived sense of securtity. Particularly when you consider that being in the majority (white male) my group has plotted 0 terrorist attacks here in Canada.

I am all for profiling, the nonsense of pulling little old white ladies out of the line for screening in the airport is moronic to say the least.

Canadians are already sacrificing many of their rights to freedom. The average Canadian serf now works almost half of his life to contribute to the "State". We no longer have the right to self protection in our own homes or businesses (Shand King). It is part of a greater problem of people no longer wanting to take responsibilty for their own lives.

If someone is raping your wife..."just call 911"
Lost your job..."call the government"
No work in your area ..."call the government"
Got a tummy ache..."call the gov't"
Need the news..."watch the gov't news station"
(except on tuesdays)

Anyway, this is the classic way that governments take freedom away from people. They create or take advantage of an existing fear and promise increased security in exchange for a decrease in freedom. Inevitably it fails.

The english have traded away an amazing amount of freedom (and I might add common sense) and have only gained an increase in violent crime. Their homicide rate is about 1.5 per 100,000 while in the USA it is about 3.2 per 100,000. Big difference right? In England they don't call it a homicide if the case was pleaded down to manslaughter or whatever, or if the body is not found, or if the case is not solved. So in England, if they find a bullet ridden body in the street but don't prosecute anyone (for murder) then it is not a homicide. Neat trick huh?

OFF TOPIC HERE: Did any Ontario bloggers see the article in the Star: "McGuinty Quietly Changes Ontario Trillium Symbol"
Total waste of taxpayer money 219,000+, Contract of course went to a Liberal freindly Ad Agency(sound familiar) & here is the topper wait for it, The symbol will now look very similar to the Ontario Liberal Symbol(The trillium in the letter I).
The Star has a reader feedback go & look 99% respondents total disgust.
thanks everyone for allowing the interuption & have a great weekend
Bryanr

Actually, dawg, I've seen this as well:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
Columbia Encyclopedia.

Trivialities aside, the point remains.

TerryGain - I agree, freedom and security are competing values. This is natural. But both are necessary, not optional, and especially in the more complex realm of our species.

In all of life, there are systems that necessarily promote symmetry or continuity. This provides security. If we didn't have this, then our world would be pure randomness. Symmetry ensures that the new kittens will be genetically similar to the old cats.

But, freedom or asymmetry is an equal necessity, for it enables the whole system (made up of both processes of symmetry and asymmetry)to divert from the norm, to adapt to new environmental realities. Without that capacity to innovate, to be 'asymmetrical', we'd rapidly become extinct.

So, a robust society has to ensure that it can provide systems that enable both these processes, security or continuity, and freedom or discontinuity. The fact that these are 'opposite' processes is part of their reality.

Muslim tribalism, for example, is focused only on symmetry. No change. It has no capacity to adapt or change. That's why it hasn't had a scientific thought for 1,000 years.

Postmodern relativism focuses only on asymmetry, only on differences. It has no capacity to evaluate these differences, for life is purely random. Postmodern relativism is a superifical world; the latte drinkers can't exist without the infrastructure which they deride, that infrastructure than provides them with the security of a job, of a safe environment where they can drink their lattes and so on.

But, in times when the env't pressures increase and are harmful pressures, such as Islamic terrorism, then, the system must focus on maintaining its integrity. Bears hibernate when the env't pressures increase; some plants go into a no-growth mode; a society must maintain its capacity for symmetry, its sense of its values, to enable its own continuity.

Daniel

Food for thought? The meal you served up was not edible. What freedoms and liberties are we demanding be given up for security? You speak of "gunsights of the security apparatus" in a country where officialdom can't bear to describe 17 Muslim suspected terrorists as other than "coming from a broad strata of society".

We have universes, not miles, to go before we reach that slippery slope you are worrying about.

Daniel - I agree with Terry Gain. Exactly what freedoms and liberties have been lost? You refer to 'removal of our liberties'. Please explain.

You refer to monitoring of our email and phone. How does that affect your freedom and liberty? If the security forces capture a terrorist cell before the bomb goes off, doesn't this enable your freedom and liberty to continue?

You refer to camera presences. How does that affect your freedom and liberty? The camera captures the thief who robs the corner store and brutally beats up the owner.

You are ignoring that a certain percentage of our population are, and always will be, criminal. To protect ourselves from being robbed, from thugs taking over our streets, we need security. And, since we can't have a 'cop on every block', we require a different data gathering source: email and phone surveillance, and cameras.

johnboy - I fully agree with you about the loss of security that goes along with the loss of the freedom to self-protect oneself. That's socialism; that's the Liberal/NDP agenda.

"Consider, moreover, the most famous words in the history of presidential convention oratory: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v3n5/janiskee.html

Perhaps my mind is a bit muddled, but I'm not sure we've gotten to the core of the issue yet. IMO, are the posts by johnboy and Daniel in agreement or opposing?

Using an analogy of cockroaches to represent "the bad guys" and light to represent "privacy", I would note...because cockroaches skulk about in the dark, it is necessary to shine a bit of light on them to find them; does this violate everyone's right to darkness?

To obtain security and help the law enforcement officials to locate/track/capture the "bad guys", it would be so much more efficient/effective if we all give up some of our privacy. Personally, I have nothing to hide, so I am not terribly concerned...as long as the motives are pure. The trouble is, motives may not always be pure.

Some processes are in place to protect against loss of privacy for less than pure motives, but it is not yet watertight (nor will it ever be, unfortunately). As an example, additional processes such as the appointment of "impartial" advocates for those whose privacy may be violated (in addition to just a judge) may be appropriate in relation to the issuance of security certificates...and with the added advocacy perhaps we could permit greater intrusion.

This is a slippery slope. Although Ben Franklin is a respected person and the quote is "attractive" and logical, should we necessarily run scared of giving up rights for security?

1. The meaning and ramifications of the "extremism" phrase have caused much debate. It had been thought Karl Hess was the author of the speech and the extremism phrase had been suggested by Harry Jaffa, a professor of political science at Claremont College. In a letter to F. Clifton White, Jaffa attempts to clear up the confusion about both the authorship of the acceptance speech and the origin of the extremism phrase.

Jaffa points out Hess had written the draft of a speech "which no one liked." When Goldwater made it known he wanted the extremism phrase worked into the middle of the speech, it was recommended that the author of the phrase "might know best how to produce the beginning and the ending!" Warren Nutter was to assist Jaffa, but Jaffa maintains "it was my work from beginning to end."

As for the "extremism phrase," the "famous couplet was not from Burke, Cicero, or any one else." It is in fact a passage from Thomas Paine's Rights of Man: "A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." Jaffa goes on to write, "Neither I nor Aristotle could have said it any better." Letter to F. Clifton White from Harry V. Jaffa, August 16, 1992, papers of F. Clifton White, Box 9, Ashland University Archives. Return to text.

http://www.ashbrook.org/articles/hartz-draftgoldwater.html

To clarify now that additional comments have been added...the "rights" we would be giving up would be primarily the "right to privacy" (is this a constitutional right or just one of those "fundamental" rights that SCOC judges get to apply?).

The thing about freedoms, is you have to be alive to exercise them.

If you are looking at the cemetary from the bottom up, this impinges on your freedoms; at least in this world.

The terrorists are of the opinion that your life and theirs don't matter much in the grand scheme of things.

Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
Thomas Paine

Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.
Gilbert K. Chesterton

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill

And lastly for those who engage in anti-Americanisms:

The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.
Thomas Jefferson

The problem with having the government of Canada protect us from terrorists is that the largest terrorist organization in Canada is the government of Canada. Don't believe me? Think about it. I'd be willing to bet that there are more people in Canada that are afraid of government than any "terriorest" which makes them #1.

hassle - I'm not sure what you mean by 'rights to privacy'.

Is the robber, being photographed as he beats up and robs the store-owner, deprived of his rights to privacy by that camera?

My credit cards are scrutinized, and for that I am very grateful. I recall once being phoned in my office by the Credit Card Company, that they had stopped a purchase (by me supposedly) for $4,000 worth of jewelery from S. Korea.
The credit cards scrutinize every purchase, as it is being made; if it's 'out of normal pattern', they are immediately alert.

So, I'm not sure what you mean by loss of privacy. I think that in our modern world, where so much of our interactions are electronically networked, we require surveillance of these electronic interactions.

In our modern world, where so many commercial interactions take place 'out of the neighbourhood' where people are known - we require surveillance cameras. These cameras catch the thief, the attacker and the person doing 160 km on a 60 km road.
Surveillance of electronic media catches the terrorists, and the gangs and the drug runners.

ET:

Just to establish my postmodern credentials by harping on trivialities:

The quotation alleged to be by B. Franklin (from An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania) is screenshot here:

http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605

I think many people don't really belive, down deep inside, that there could be a credible threat here in Canada The Good. Therefore it must all be some kind of misunderstanding.

People in Caledonia and Ipperwash understand that there IS a threat, and that it comes primarily from the government. A couple hundred armed knobs with crazy demands isn't much of a threat, but a couple hundred riot cops guarding the knobs and using our money to do it, now that's a problem.

So I think we are going to see some interesting politics coming out of the terrorist threat, the criminal threat in Toronto/Montreal/Vancouver and the emerging Native campaign of bad behaviour. If you call the cops and they either don't come or they come and arrest YOU because you fended off an attack, government has ceased to be the solution and has become the problem. Then what the hell do you do?

That is where we are right now. Some people are smelling the coffee early, a large minority are still sleeping.

dawg - so what? Your reference says x; another reference says y. So?

CAW- that has to be the dumbest form of definition I've seen. The definition of a terrorist organization is not that the 'recipient' is afraid of it. I'm afraid of venemous spiders. Does that mean that spiders are terrorists? I'm afraid of poisonous mushrooms. Are mushrooms terrorist organizations?

The gov't of Canada is not a terrorist organization. It is an elected gov't, constrained by the constitution and the rule of law. Terrorism, in case you are interested and I am presuming you aren't - has no constitution or rules of law.

Do you know the valid meaning of terrorism? It's a civilian group engaged in subverting the legal infrastructure of a society, by means of violent personal attacks on civilians.

The agenda is to change the power base of the society and put that base within their control. That is, they are attempting to snatch control of a country, not by election but by force, and govern a country, not by the will of the people, but by holding the population hostage to their force.

Caledonia was a terrorist act; and McGuinty is a spineless fool.

You must have had a late night CAW. Have a strong cup of coffee and wake up, get the juices going, and think. You have absolutely nothing to base your statement on, so prove it. "More people in Canada are afraid of government than any 'terrorist'". You did watch the TV coverage of 9/11 and the underground bombings in London, I suppose, (as did everyone else in the world) so back up your ridiculous statement. I'll gladly take your bet.

ET, excellent post! I wish I could have said it as well.

Re: National Post: "without national security all other individual rights become theoretical"

I would be curious what the residents of Caledonia who have been informed that policing by the OPP (which is paid for through their taxes and a separate contract for which they paid more than $8,000,000) have to say about this.

Their rights (starting with security) have been removed NOT eroded. Do you think the native police force is going to be even handed in their dealings or that these people will trust them to be so?

Although the situation there is smaller and the tactics are less violent, the similarity between it and national security are very real. I see it as a very poignant lesson.

vieux loup - I agree. The natives in Caledonia acted as terrorists. They rejected the rule of law, they attempted to achieve their goal, of control of the property, via holding the citizens of Caledonia hostage, and by violent acts (burning of bridge), by physical attacks against both civilians and police.

And what did our gov't do? It gave in to these terrorists; it actually bought the land from the developer, using taxpayer money, and is holding it 'for the natives'.

It refused to uphold the law, it refused to hold natives as citizens of Canada and therefore, obliged to uphold the law, it didn't charge them for their violent actions.

McGuinty should be impeached.

This is some interesting info about the American flag known as the Gadston flag.

In December 1775, "An American Guesser" anonymously wrote to the Pennsylvania Journal:

"I observed on one of the drums belonging to the marines now raising, there was painted a Rattle-Snake, with this modest motto under it, 'Don't tread on me.' As I know it is the custom to have some device on the arms of every country, I supposed this may have been intended for the arms of America."

This anonymous writer, having "nothing to do with public affairs" and "in order to divert an idle hour," speculated on why a snake might be chosen as a symbol for America.

First, it occurred to him that "the Rattle-Snake is found in no other quarter of the world besides America."

The rattlesnake also has sharp eyes, and "may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance."

Furthermore,

"She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage. ... she never wounds 'till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her."

Finally,

"I confess I was wholly at a loss what to make of the rattles, 'till I went back and counted them and found them just thirteen, exactly the number of the Colonies united in America; and I recollected too that this was the only part of the Snake which increased in numbers. ...

"'Tis curious and amazing to observe how distinct and independent of each other the rattles of this animal are, and yet how firmly they are united together, so as never to be separated but by breaking them to pieces. One of those rattles singly, is incapable of producing sound, but the ringing of thirteen together, is sufficient to alarm the boldest man living."

Many scholars now think that this "American Guesser" was Benjamin Franklin.

ET & gellen
Sorry to take so long but I had to check the atlas and I was right. Neither New York nor London have been moved to Canada.
My woording may need amplifacation but I stand by my description that the Canadian government is the largest terriorest group in Canada. There may be 301 ellected turkeys there but the real power is the un-elected bureaucracy that has un-limmited powers.
The joke you refer to as the rule of law is in reality a legal system made up by laywers to service the laywers and the legal profession. If thats not so how come not one politican has gone to jail over adscam?
McGuinty is probably all you say, but even though what the Indians did "are still doing?" is a terriorest act, what the Ontario and Canadian government are doing is a bigger terriorest act.
Who are the people of Caledonia more afraid of. The Indians or the government? If they're not afraid of government why haven't they moved to protect themselves?

Correction: It is the Gadsden Flag.

Geez, I had it right in front of me and still spelled it wrong.

Sorry.

In addition to Mr. Franklin's observation, it is also the case that: They that can give up essential safety to obtain a little temporary liberty deserve neither liberty nor safety.

The gov't of Canada is not a terrorist organization. It is an elected gov't, constrained by the constitution and the rule of law. Terrorism, in case you are interested and I am presuming you aren't - has no constitution or rules of law.

Nonsense [to the second part] All kinds of organizations we describe as "terrorist" have their own "constitution" (manifesto, whatever you want to call it), and every group of people more than 2 establishes some form of law, written or otherwise, to govern their relative behavior. In an extreme case: Hamas. Duly elected, and a terrorist org in most western countries view.

the Canadian government, at least under the liberals, was barely constrained by either the constitution or law, if you actually get to watch them at work. Terrorism is tyranny by a minority. Tyranny by the majority is just plain tryanny :)

Rubbish, CAW.

The Liberal gov't in Ottawa was corrupt, and is corrupt in Ontario, but neither gov't is a terrorist organization. Kindly get your terms straight.

Terrorism. Corruption. Two bad things. But two dissimilar things.

I agree that some of our politicans, notably, Chretien, should be charged in court. I think that McGuinty should be impeached.

A major problem in Canadian gov't is that the majority of governance is appointed rather than elected. Canada is an oligarchy rather than a democracy. The judges on the Supreme Court are appointed by the PMO, without vetting or accountability. All judges are appointed, without vetting or accountability. Deputy Ministers, Chiefs of public corporations, heads of funding, on and on and on and on; they are all appointed by the gov't. The ratio of appointed to elected is ten to one.

Bilingualism, a disastrous mistake, narrowed the field of possible appointees to a clique within the Ottawa-Montreal corridor. This clique has become self-defined, closed to outsiders and incestuous. It has become the governing oligarchy.

I will say that Harper is restoring the relevance of the elected House to importance.

The Liberals had effectively destroyed the House as a forum of governance and had concentrated all their power in their inelected appointees. The House was irrelevant, and it is interesting, the House is still irrelevant to the Liberals! They are rarely there; they are invisible as the 'official opposition'. The Liberals also effectively ignored the rules and motions of the House.

The problem, CAW, with our gov't and I agree strongly that there is a problem, is the massive reduction of potential gov't appointees by the insistence on bilingualism (this has cost us 80% of the electorate). Then, the overwhelming ratio of appointed to elected members of gov't, and the fact that these are unvetted by the House. And, the near-destruction of the elected House by the Liberals.

1)I'm with Franklin. Liberty first.

2) Isn't it tyranny/terrorism when the government by force makes it impossible for the people to get the healthcare they need, thus resulting in thousands of preventable deaths?

3) Not to mention massive theft going on (aka redistribution via excessive taxation) which has nothing to do with democracy or management of the common good.

skip - I suggest you clear up your terms.
Tyranny by a minority is not the definition of a terrorist group.

And a terrorist group does not have a constitution nor a set of laws. It has a mandate and a set of rules. Gosh, golly, am I just obfuscating and mixing up terms? No. There's a difference.

Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence against persons and/or property to intimidate a people and/or gov't to fufil the wishes of that group.
Note 'unlawful', which means the terrorists are civilians.
And I repeat, the Caledonian natives were acting as terrorists. And McGuinty ought to be impeached for his actions.

The terrorist group will have a mandate, an oral or written 'agenda', set of beliefs. This mandate has nothing to do with governance but with agenda.

A constitution, for a nation, is a written set of axioms and principles which define the governing infrastructure of the country. All legal statutes and decisions must conform to these basic axioms.

A set of laws are statutes that define valid and invalid behaviour within that society. As law, they are upheld by the courts and the lawyers. In a democracy, laws are made by the legislature, the elected body of representatives.

A set of rules is just that; a set of rules of behaviour that may have nothing to do with the terrorist mandate (let's take over the Caledonia land), but is based within and only within that group of operatives (Big Billy is the Boss; we only wear blue bandanas).

Again, our Liberal gov't in the federal and provincial area was and is corrupt. Chretien ought to be charged for fraud and money-laundering. McGuinty ought to be impeached for gross dereliction of duty and misuse of the taxpayer money. None of this was terrorism. And none of it was 'tyranny'.

dawg - so what? Your reference says x; another reference says y. So?

Do you know what a screenshot is? Give it up, ET. Your intellectual honesty is in peril, and over such a trivial matter....

If forced to pick I'd put Libery first too, Johann. But Mr. Franklin did not put Liberty first, he put Essential Liberty first. Similarly, he did not contrast with security, he contrasted with Temporary Security. That's why I brought it up. People who denigrate Mr. Franklin's genius by attributing to him some mindless comment about unqualified liberty and security, when he was clearly explicitly comparing Essential Liberty to Temporary Security, are a pet peeve of mine.

Just to be clear: Mr. Franklin said nothing about non-essential liberty, and nothing about permanent security. I think the tradeoffs are probably clear to a reasonable man, although it does seem to me that a lot of people do like to hang around on web logs with the express purpose of exercising their unreasonableness, so perhaps that explains it.

dawg- who is focusing on trivia?

When you stop one person or a group of persons from protecting themselves by an implied threat of force are you not terrorising them? If you are terrorising them are you not a terrorist?
It may be nit-picking but the end results are the same.

There are three substantive differences between Mr. Franklin's original wording and today's colloquial aphorism: (1) Those who would => They that can; (2) purchase => obtain; and (3) safety => security.

Did you have a particular point you wanted to make about one or more of those differences Dawg, or were you just trying to be gratuitously unreasonable?

Gotta disagree ET. If you consider certain rights to be inalienable to use the American term, and the government actively moves against you and supports a small group bent on destroying those rights, that is oppression.

Oppression is not something a legitimate, elected government of a free nation does. It is something tyrants do.

Canadians are -finally- waking up to the fact that they do not have inalienable rights under the law. Not to property, not to privacy, not to self defense.

What they are waking up to is that we live in a tyranny disguised as a free country. You are free so long as it remains convenient for the ruling regime, and should it become inconvenient you are NOT free.

Henco just discovered that the deed to that land they paid hard money for isn't worth the paper its printed on. Dalton finds it inconvenient, therefore it is null and void.

The poor bastards on the Sixth Line in Caledonia just discovered that their right to be secure in their property and person does not exist. Cops will not come when called. Furthermore should they act in the defense of their persons or property, even against armed attack, the cops will take THEM away.

The difference between that and some banana republic junta is one of degree, not kind.

As for the Warrior Society, they are flying the flag of Palestine today and I've got photos of it. Tells me all I need to know about that lot.

So let us not mince words here. The question is not what are we facing, its what are we going to do about it. Defeating the Liberals and discrediting their assinine ideology is a start.

Did you have a particular point you wanted to make about one or more of those differences Dawg, or were you just trying to be gratuitously unreasonable?

Precisely why am I "gratuitously unreasonable" for providing an accurate quotation from (or probably from) Benjamin Franklin? What on earth is wrong with you?

In any case, it's not a trivial distinction. If peoiple are going to forward aphorisms to back up their positions--a form of argument from authority--then they should at least get the damned things right.

The only crux here is what Franklin meant by "essential" in the phrase "essential liberty." I believe a case can be made that, for Ben F., ALL liberty is "essential." I have seen no evidence that he made a distinction between "essential" and "non-essential" liberty. Liberty, for Franklin, was one indivisible notion. He was saying, in other words, that liberty is essential and should not be traded away for immediate "safety."

Now it happens that I agree with him in the current context. Civil liberties are always fragile when a population is terrorized--by its own leaders.

Thanks, vitruvius. Dawg is just doing his usual, which is to assert his superiority (as is his self-definition of 'Dr').

CAW- I'll continue to disagree. I think that definitions are important, and your definition of terrorist is unique to you.

The Phantom - I certainly agree that the McGuinty Liberals have disastrously failed the people of Caledonia. They did not protect the rights of the people; they did not act on the terrorist actions of the natives. That's why I suggest McGuinty should be impeached. The gov't should actually fall, now, on this issue. So, I fully agree with all of your outline of what McGuinty and the Liberals did. It is an outrage.

I think it's more than defeating the Liberals; yes, they have to be defeated. But the whole leftist ideology of multiculturalism, of 'victim rights', of payments for past suffering, of political correctness - has to be dropped.

Margaret Wente has a great column in today's G&M. She is claiming that her ancestors were Americans and so, she ought to be compensated now, for past sufferings (hey, you guys, aka the Brits, burned the White House) and current sufferings (always blaming the Evil USA).

As she points out, any and all groups can fictionalize themselves as having endured 'past suffering' in coming to Canada. Of course, their forefathers and ancient generations probably inflicted 'past sufferings' on other groups way back in the old country as well.

We can go on and on, in our regressive textual wanderings, digging up past grievances, and expect the current taxpayer to unload the money into our eager hands.

I would withdraw one comment--the "argument from authority" one. Franklin's aphorism was not used in that capacity, but only as a talking-point. Apologies all round.

That being said, I do not happen to believe that the case has been made for encroachments on civil liberties. The latest revelations* about the chief witness against Harkat, for example--erupting after the Globe and Mail's smug assurances that security certificates are just ducky (except for Ernst Zundel, for some reason--maybe his name didn't sound Arabic enough)--should give thinking people pause.

*http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20060622222111556

Say you had a life-threatening condition. Say that taking a dose of a drug every day would ensure your security/safety against the condition. Say you had to eat before taking the drug. Would you give up the liberty of eating whenever you want in favour of the security of your life?

I would withdraw one comment--the "argument from authority" one. Franklin's aphorism was not used in that capacity, but only as a talking-point. Apologies all round.

That being said, I do not happen to believe that the case has been made for encroachments on civil liberties. The latest revelations about the chief witness against Harkat, for example--erupting after the Globe and Mail's smug assurances that security certificates are just ducky (except for Ernst Zundel, for some reason--maybe his name didn't sound Arabic enough)--should give thinking people pause.

As for ET's blatherings, after his display of egregious ignorance about the writings of Sir Karl Popper, and his ridiculous insistence that his Franklin quote is as good as mine, I can no longer take him very seriously. If that's "superiority," then in this case, with regret, I must plead guilty.

I sent an earlier version of this with a URL for the Harkat revelations, but I don't want to have to wait until Kate returns.

Say you had a life-threatening condition. Say that taking a dose of a drug every day would ensure your security/safety against the condition. Say you had to eat before taking the drug. Would you give up the liberty of eating whenever you want in favour of the security of your life?

That's a false analogy. Canada is not a body, and our collective lives are not at stake.

www. cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/falseanalogy.asp

The American Heritage Dictionary defined terrorism as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

The Thomson Gale legal encyclopedia defines terrorism as "The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property in order to coerce or intimidate a government or the civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives."

So, to an anarchist, the approach preferred by CAW is, I believe, appropriate. However, since I am a minarchist, I would say it is a matter of degree.

In the vernacular, I don't see an insurmountable problem if a free and fairly elected government enforces, say, a flat ten per-cent tax on all purchases in order to fund its operation of the commons.

On the other hand, I do think that if the government tortures me for not turning over one-hundred percent of my income, then that's definately terrorism, no bones about it.

ET and Terry Gain
Sorry for the delay, I have been out at work for a few hours.
I think if you went back a few years ago, most people would have thought it reprehensible or unthinkable that private communications would be monitored with sanction from the government.
The liberties that are being eroded away are things like the "expectation of privacy" on the part of the average law biding citizen. I have nothing to hide but I am not so sure that I want more and more government agencies having access to my life. Banking records, health records, private communications, like where does it end. All of this information that gets stored in a CSIS data bank is only secure until someone steals a hard drive or hacks into the system... I know, extreme paranoia, my therapist is working on me! What I see being built is an ever more robust security system in western societies. At the present time we all endorse the increased spending on security because of the extremist threat.
My point was this, once we get this robust network in place and the threat is eliminated, then what. It has been a fact that beaurocratic institutions continue to increase in size or at least hold their own. Downsizing is not the norm, unless of course you are the Canadian military under the Liberal regime.
As I said, it was just a thought, perhaps mixed with a mistrust of future political intentions, but a robust security network could be a threat to the freedoms of us all. Todays gain may be tomorrows pain. Universes away? At the speed things are moving these days, decades perhaps, hopefully never.
Daniel

Sorry I wan't more clear, Dawg. I wasn't trying to make an analogy, I was trying to introduce a thought-provoking contrapuntal. The details aren't relevent here, at Kate's blog, for this is not a freshman logic course; suffice to say that it is dangerous to confuse rhetoric per se and dialectics as a whole.

Gollee ET, you are doing just that, obfusticating. And contradicting yourself:

Tyranny by a minority is not the definition of a terrorist group.
And I repeat, the Caledonian natives were acting as terrorists.

Of course it is, you've just illustrated it. As regard to law, not unlawful according to them.

When I was a young'un, many decades ago, we had a saying at school; you may have heard it: "those that can, do; those that can't, teach".
It really is not necessary to offer me your interpretation of what civilization is, since I get paid to be the pointy end of the stick for the Feds. Enjoy your fantasy of how the world works, because, it really is a fantasy. What you've spouted is what we say when we want to believe that we really do respect the rule of law. What I am occasionally expected to do is much closer to the truth: biggest stick wins.

My display of ignorance about the writings of Popper??? Sure. I know his works, all of them, far better than you do, dawg; in fact, his Open Society was the major textbook that I, yes I, assigned in my upper level class on 'Social Architectures'.

No, I didn't assert that 'my' Franklin quote was 'as good as yours', dawg. I'm not into juvenile 'Mine is better than yours'. What I did, after you posted your one-upmanship reference of the original rather than common wording of the quote - was to refer you to other sources of that same reference. Why? Because the CONTENT was the issue, not your posturing your self-defined superiority to everyone.

ET:

Frankly, your 'intellectual honest' is to be highly commended. This is the best of what the 'net' offers. His statements are to be studied and scrutinized and possibly presented to government as they are gleaning now for 'just concepts' to achieve majority status.

SHOWING OF INTELLECT AND CONSCIENCE IN BALANCE

No, skip, I stand by my point. Tyranny by a minority is not the definition of a terrorist group. That's too limited a definition. After all, a set of mafia bosses can tyrannize their underlings, but neither they nor the underlings, are terrorists. A corrupt deputy minister or CEO can tyrannize his office staff, but, was Radzwanski a terrorist?

vitruvius has two definitions. Notice the axioms. It's unlawful, it's violence, it's against civilians, it's to coerce a gov't and/or its people, by intimidation, to do something outside the normative laws. Nothing to do with a 'minority of people'. A gov't is involved. And it IS 'unlawful'; it's irrelevant that it's not unlawful 'according to them'. They don't make the laws.

No, the biggest stick doesn't win. You are promoting tyranny, which is rule by force. That's not what a good gov't is about.

And don't denigrate into insults. It's juvenile to try to insult me with your 'when I was young'. I don't buy into childish name-calling.

daniel, I accept your concern about the gov't and authorities knowing 'everything about us'. But, we live in a different world than even a decade ago.

Our new world is electronically networked. More and more, what we do, is via these electronics. We bank by the internet; we communicate, send papers, have conferences electronically. We don't sit at our desk to do these tasks; our blackberry goes with us; our digital camera/email/phones take pictures and send them instantly all over the world.
This electronically networked world means that the type of privacy we 'thought' we had, is gone.

But, did we have privacy? In our previous small towns and neighbourhoods, somehow, everything was known about everyone, by everyone. I have always found small towns unsettling for this reason. Go into the neighbourhood store, purchase a different magazine, and the clerk will say - Oh, but you don't usually buy this!
So, how's that for privacy?

In our modern electronic world, criminality, which is an ever-present economic mode, has moved into this world. The criminals find out our credit card numbers and attempt to use them. I'm very glad that my bank is watching and can stop those criminal purchases.

We can't go back to an un-networked world. And I think that means that we can't go back to a 'silent world'. We are all networked.

ET barrels on:

My display of ignorance about the writings of Popper??? Sure. I know his works, all of them, far better than you do, dawg; in fact, his Open Society was the major textbook that I, yes I, assigned in my upper level class on 'Social Architectures'.

And yet you had never heard of his "methodological nominalism" and "methodological essentialism" dichotomy.

Nominalism versus essentialism???? That's not Popper! Where do you get that from?

Well, from pages 31ff of the first volume of Open Society, for starters. Do you always assign texts that to this day you have apparently not read yourself? You are an intellectual fraud, Sir.

Vitruvius:

I take your point. There could be cases in which security or safety might trump liberty. But I haven't seen them in Canada post 9/11.

ET: But you surely denigrate with arrogance. Your position is arrogant and demeaning. You are churlish and dismissive when taken to task, and you have not defined yourself as an authority.
Clearly, you don't grasp the concept of law. All law is relativistic. It is only axiomatic for a particular culture, for a particular place in time.
And, you are putting words in my mouth. At no point did I "promote tyranny". Law IS rule by force, the force of the majority, and yes, it often is, tyrannical.

It's juvenile to try to insult me with your 'when I was young'. I don't buy into childish name-calling.
Apparently you do. This comment is just pompous.

Hmm, hmm, well, I do think that it is something like the case that the big stick wins. For some value of stick. Force, indeed violence, can be sticks, but so can knowledge and wisdom. In practice, it's all a fine balancing act. Sun Tzu discusses the problem at some length. (For some value of discuss.)

To some degree it depends on one's goals (how do you define winning). For example, if one's goal is volitional isolation, then it doesn't take a stick at all, just a good hiding place.

Pompous? And what's wrong with a little pomp? Indeed...

What good is sitting
Alone in you room?
Come hear the music play.
Life is an S D A, old chum,
Come to the S D A.

Put down the knitting,
The book and the broom.
Time for a holiday.
Life is an S D A, old chum,
Come to the S D A.

Come taste the wine,
Come hear the band.
Come blow a horn,
Start celebrating;
Right this way,
Your table's waiting.

No use permitting
Some prophet of doom
To wipe every smile away.
Come hear the music play.
Life is an S D A, old chum,
Come to the S D A!

Terrorism, tyranny, govt, law, are all applications of force, one to another - which they are, depends entirely on where your perspective, or the perspective of your clan (at whatever level of definition you want for that) is taken from. Force simply defined is the application of coercion. The means may be through wisdom and knowledge (law, ostensibly), through violence, through ideology, through culture. You will not get universal concurrence on a definition of terrorism; as the popular saying goes, "one man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter". Volitional isolation could be considered nihilistic. When you find one, let me know :)

I was thinking of the old romantic notion of the prospector or the trapper, Skip, not nihilism. I've always thought that there's a piece of those gentlemen in my nature. And, to be sure, web log comments often tend to be like prospecting, one has to slog through miles of mud to find the occasional gem.

I do think it is an oversimplification to define force simply as the application of coercion. While the application of coercion is arguably force, force can be other things too, such as mass times accelleration.

I think people should be forced to stop at red lights, in order to prevent them from colliding their mass times accelleration into me when I'm travelling through a green light. There is no terrorism or tyranny involved.

Terrorism is an empty signifier. There are two excellent papers on this available on-line:

www.auditorium.ru/conf/conf_fulltext/gololob.pdf

www.republicart.net/disc/empire/formwalt01_en.htm

The central point that both authors are making is that the signifier "terrorism" does not signify anything except a lack--of Western civilization, of All That We Hold Dear, of the American Way, etc. Around that lack is built the entire apparatus of the warlike, expansionist ideology of the New World Order.

1) There is such a thing as state terrorism (e.g. Khmer Rouge), thus necessitating a wider definition of terrorism.

2) 'Essential liberty' would, I hope, for most people mean right to property, right not to be put in jail forever without charges, and a right to an open trial. This we do not have in Canada.

3) I would prefer more liberty (incl the essential liberties we do not have today in Canada), and that more people subscribed to the "we are not afraid" approach to terrorism. I'll take my risks, for the benefit of freedom.

4) The Canadian government today deliberately kills people (hundreds, thousands) by not letting them seek (and pay for) the treatment they would need to survive. This, called 'Canada health act', is supported by all parties, who thus all participate in mass murder. I call that state tyranni.

5) The Canadian government also provides different sets of laws to different sets of people (aboriginals vs the rest, Quebec vs the rest, etc) and chooses not to to defend the laws when it suits the political masters. I call this a failed and arbitrary legal system.

Vitrivus, your red light example is weak. It is just an example of not being allowed to injure other fellow individuals. It has nothing to do with essential liberty.

This poll is less dire than seems at first blush. If a person takes it to mean: "Security in war, is more important during a war, than civil rights."

That's how I took the question at first as the meaning. How many other did is open to conjecture.

That does not mean our love of liberty is dead. It sure isn’t in Alberta. I can say with conviction!

The trick is to preserve as many rights as we can during wartime, & MAKE sure we get ALL of them back after this war.

Much the same as was done in both World wars.
Think of all the restriction, including gas rationing et al.

The thing is not to panic. Make sure our Constitution is Iron clad as well. Including property rights. As well as the right of self protection. AN effective, elected, Senate. In order to be a watch dog as well.

This is why liberals we need to grow up into the 21st Century & realize Canada is not young anymore & needs an overhaul of real security in Individual universal freedoms. All persons Equal before the law. No one exempt for any reason. No one above the law, no matter what station or lack of. The reverse holds true as well. All have the same protection.

I have a lot of admiration for this younger generation coming up. I doubt they will allow others to decide there fate. Not the ones I meet.

These will safe guard this Nation, & make us truly. Strong & free.

Terrorism, tyranny, liberty, security, freedom: they are not empty signifiers, they are words. They have definitions, imprecise though they usually are. Natural language is like that. Some people use them to communicate. Some don't.

On the other hand, I suspect that Dawg's phrase "entire apparatus of the warlike, expansionist ideology of the New World Order" is entirely a context-free subjectivism, its incomprehensibility rendering it largely irrelevant to the topic at hand, namely, "Security, Liberty, and the Denial of Life".

I almost completely agree with Johann's penultimate comment above, but "deliberately kills" and "mass murder" are, in my opinion, excessive hyperbole. They may win you a drink in a pissing match, but they're unlike to win the hearts and minds of the electorate.

Finally, I agree that traffic laws are not about Essential Liberty. Rather, that was my point. It is ok for people to supress some liberty in the name of the operation of the commons, and to be forced to comply or get out of the commons otherwise. It is not ok to be forced to give up essential liberties.

So what, then, Vitruvius, would you call essential liberties? Since I believe in freedom through responsibility, not freedom from responsibility, I'd suggest:

* Every human has Freedom of identity as a singular human being.
* Every human has Freedom of life, liberty, death, and self defense.
* Every human has Freedom of thought, of speach, and of action.
* Every human has Freedom of association, assembly, and privacy.
* Every human has Freedom of trade in their resources and property.

* Every human is Responsible for not prejudging individuals.
* Every human is Responsible for not using disproportionate force.
* Every human is Responsible for not being fraudulent or slanderous.
* Every human is Responsible for not engaging in collective tyranny.
* Every human is Responsible for not having irresponsible property.

dawg - Popper's methodological nominalism, of which I'm well aware of, is his own terminology for a 'mechanical particularism'. Nominalism, just that one term, without the adjective, as used by all in philosophy, refers to the rejection of the universal. Since Popper is Aristotelian, then he obviously doesn't reject the universal. And, again, since he's anti-Plato, then he certainly rejects essentialism.

skip - no, law is not relativistic. You are moving into ethical and moral relativism - and I reject that. There ARE universal principles of human rights - the basic few are well articulated in the US constitution, as equality, life and the pursuit of happiness. These are not relativistic.
Now, when you move into economies and different economies (agricultural, non-industrial, industrial, etc etc) then the laws referring to these economies are contextual to that. That doesn't mean 'relativistic'. It means conextual to the reality.

Law is required, and most naturally it is the law of the majority. What else should it be? If it moves into tyranny, then it is no longer the will of the majority.

Perfect example, vitruvius, of the red light rule. Every aggregate operates within normative habits of behaviour. These enable stability. Nothing to do with tyranny or terrorism. These normative habits develop, always, within a group, whether it's a social or biological collective.

dawg - surely you don't accept that ridiculous definition of 'terrorism' as 'the lack of western civilization'. Or, maybe you do. It's still ridiculous.

What warlike, expansionist ideology of the New World Order? Do you mean Islamic fascism?

johan in Canada. I don't see that an open trial is an essential liberty. I accept your right to property (which we don't have) and right to trial.

I'm 100% against our current public health system; I think we should enable private health care, but, I don't think that the Canadian gov't deliberately kills people. The ideology of public health care is just that, an ideology, a definitive icon of 'being Canadian'. You, either the gov't or the people, don't demolish icons easily. But, it's starting to crumble, along with the demolishment of Tommy Douglas as 'Good'.

I certainly agree with you about the arbitrary legal system. The Caledonia natives should have been charged as terrorists, and McGuinty should be impeached.

I'm an intellectual fraud? What about someone who self-assigns themself with a 'Dr' to their name?

“From the start it was clear they came for a fight and the situation escalated as the newcomers began physically confronting Caledonia residents“

June 19 Western Standard

On May 21, some very interesting groups went to "support" Six Nations in Caledonia.

Al- Awada (The Palestine Right to Return Group ) organized 6 buses to make the pilgrimage from Toronto.
Triple (w).al-awda.ca/

Other groups taking part:

-U of T Arab Students Collective -mission statement: We focus on, but do not limit our activities to, anti-imperialist struggles in the Arab world
Triple (w).arab.sa.utoronto.ca/

-Ontario Coalition Against Poverty, motto: We believe in the power of resistance.
Triple (w).ocap.ca/

-Ryerson University CKLN community radio –motto: OUT.LOUD : Fearless Queer and Trans Programming
Triple (w).ckln.fm/

-Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 3903, upcoming events- National Aboriginal Day, Summer Solstice, Pride Week
Triple (w).cupe3903.tao.ca/

-Pro immigration group -No One is Illegal
Triple (w ).toronto.nooneisillegal.org/

As they say: With friends like this….

Good point Cal. We must never forget the role of the professional ambulance chasers. It reminds me of the last gay parade I saw pass the window at the deli while I was having breakfast. The banner signs were carried by the Canadian Auto Workers and the Communist Party of Canada announcing, wait for it, themselves. What does that have to do with sexuality? But I digress.

dawg - Popper's methodological nominalism, of which I'm well aware of, is his own terminology for a 'mechanical particularism'. Nominalism, just that one term, without the adjective, as used by all in philosophy, refers to the rejection of the universal. Since Popper is Aristotelian, then he obviously doesn't reject the universal. And, again, since he's anti-Plato, then he certainly rejects essentialism.

There is seemingly no limit to your intellectual dishonesty.

From my post, to which you responded with your "That's not Popper!" comment:

Methodological nominalism versus methodological essentialism, Aristotle versus Plato?

You will note that I used the correct qualifier "methodological" in my original comment. Here you deceitfully attempt to indicate that I had not done so.

As I said before: you are a fraud. An intellectual poseur who has just been caught out.

dawg - surely you don't accept that ridiculous definition of 'terrorism' as 'the lack of western civilization'. Or, maybe you do. It's still ridiculous.

I would suggest actually reading the papers, if you can get through them. The second one is particularly tough going. But whether Laclau or Lacan is the source of the notion, the case is solid. "Terrorism" signifies a lack. It doesn't signify any specific thing by itself.

What warlike, expansionist ideology of the New World Order? Do you mean Islamic fascism?

I was thinking, rather, of the incessant imperial American invasions and threats on the world stage that now have a new foundation--that empty signifier I was talking about. It's a goody, too: this "war on terror" has no end.

This from citizensofcaledonia.ca

There are a number of letters posted, from members of the community.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A letter written to the leading members of the Liberal government dealing with the issue:

I am employed full time in Burlington as a Nurse Manager and part time in Hamilton as a Registered Nurse in ICU. I am also a part time student at Ryerson University. I have 2 children, aged 12 and 6, who attend Notre Dame Elementary School. My home borders Douglas Creek Estates in Caledonia.
The occupiers drive around my home and neighbourhood, armed with bats, clubs, tasers, machetes and guns that they defiantly wave in plain sight, while they scream obscenities and threats of bodily harm at me, my family and my neighbours, all while law enforcement turns its back. This directly violates my autonomy as well as violates the rule of law.
ATV’s race around my home all hours of the night, some with their mufflers removed, as the driver’s yell and scream. Heavy equipment vehicles move large materials throughout the night while construction takes place all hours of darkness behind Braemar. The sounds of hammering, banging and gunshots can always be heard. Sleep deprivation has impacted my ability to provide optimum nursing care in my profession. My concentration level has decreased significantly when I am at work, as I obsess about my children’s safety while they are at school. My employer has had to cancel surgical procedures on several occasions to accommodate my need to return to Caledonia to ensure the safety of my children and home.
My phone line has been cut, I have had occupiers run into my back yard and bottles of gasoline left behind my fences. Occupiers with bandanas covering their faces, drive up to the concrete barriers in vans and trucks, step out of the vehicles, and then proceed to stand and stare at the residents or take our pictures. Occupiers have come onto my property and my neighbours. I approached them with open arms and asked what they wanted; I was threatened and told not to come any closer. Some of my neighbours were physically assaulted. There was no police presence at this incident as they had been called away to deal with an incident involving OPP officers on Sixth Line.
My children have had to witness fires, burned bridges, threats, blocked highways, anarchy and lawlessness. I try to protect them but due to the location of our home and their school they are subjected to this 24 hours a day. Lock downs are now part of their academic highlight. They have learned true fear, witnessed lawlessness and felt imprisoned in their school and homes. There has been no attempt to relocate our children. My suggestion, relocate the children from Notre Dame to Unity School and position the OPP command post to Notre Dame. Children are entitled to an education in a non-threatening environment.
This occupation has created a hostile, fear-driven environment, which I have been living in since the beginning of the protest. I fear for my life, the life of my children and neighbours, as well as my home. I remain terrorized ...-
voy forums

Vitruvius,

"Every human has Freedom of identity as a singular human being."
Does this mean we all have the right to unique number?

"Every human has Freedom of life, liberty, death, and self defense."
No idea what this means.

"Every human has Freedom of thought, of speach, and of action."
Unfortunately, these rights are severely restricted in Canada. Cmp language laws, gag laws, forced support of political parties, Zundel etc etc).

"Every human has Freedom of association, assembly, and privacy."
Unfortunately, these rights are basically non-existant in Canada. There is no freedom of association (cpm mandatory union membership), there might be freedom of assembly (except when trying to assemble behind a union barricade), there is no privacy (try to avoid filling in the census forms).

"Every human has Freedom of trade in their resources and property."
In Canada this right does not exist (cmp CWB, internal trade barriers etc), and, further, we have no right to our property in the first place.

"Every human is Responsible for not prejudging individuals."
Whatever, what the heck does that mean?

"Every human is Responsible for not using disproportionate force."
Sure, but who decides?

"Every human is Responsible for not being fraudulent or slanderous."
Sure, but who decides what is slanderous?

"Every human is Responsible for not engaging in collective tyranny."
Collective tyranny is alive and well in Canada.

"Every human is Responsible for not having irresponsible property."
What is irresponsible property? Who decides? Is there such a thing as irresponsible property? Perhaps only irresponsible use?

There is no way ET is a fraud, Dawg. If you had been paying attention over the last couple years in the Canadian political blogosphere, instead of just venting your spleen on it, you would know quite a lot about who ET is, and ET is no fraud. Trust me, lad, least ye make a fool of thyself.

That said, I have noticed that a certain degree of beligerence does tend to grow on these channels, much like that nasty green alge grows on things in marine climates.

"Every human has Freedom of life, liberty, death, and self defense."

No idea what this means.

Yeah, I stopped at the "freedom of liberty" bit.

There is no way ET is a fraud, Dawg.

On the contrary, I have just finished demonstrating it. He was talking about a work with which he obviously had no familiarity (The Open Society and Its Enemies), since a major concept that runs through the work was evidently new to him. He compounded the felony by claiming that he had assigned the work in question as a major text to a senior class somewhere.

At first he denied that the dichotomy I raised even existed in the text. Then he tried to wriggle out of it by deliberatly obfuscating what I had originally stated.

He is a fraud and a poseur, and your fawning admiration for him doesn't change that one whit.

Recalling first that I generally agree with your comments hereto, Johan, I'd just like to note that I'm not going to go into an in depth discussion of your above questions here. We would have to lose track of the "Security, Liberty, and the Denial of Life" topic, which our illustrious hostess Kate would prefer we not do. Please consider my top ten to be just my opinion, not my argument, at least not here, not now.

Vitruvius,

In any case, all your rights, freedoms, and responsibilities boils down to the principle of Self Ownership.
I.e. you, nobody else (especially not the state), owns your life, liberty, and property.

Very nice list, vitruvius. I agree with all; the only one I don't get is 'every human is responsible for not having irresponsible property'. What's that?

Johan in Kanada - those are a 'wish list' of Vitruvius, not an outline of 'the way it is in Canada'.

good god, dawg, do you archive all your posts? Do you care?
We had been discussing universals and nominalism. Not Popper's 'bricolage' style piece by piece mode of governance (methodological nominalism). That was my answer.

Again, you know zilch about my credentials or work. Therefore, your conclusion that I'm an intellectual fraud is a bit specious. But, you are the one who self-defines themself as 'Dr'. Hmmm.

maz2 thanks for the outline. Again, the Ontario gov't has behaved reprehensibly and ought to resign. And McGuinty ought to be impeached.

At this point, we should commence the revolution, but first I have to eat dinner, so I'll see ya'll later.

good god, dawg, do you archive all your posts? Do you care?

Translation: "Whoops!"

We had been discussing universals and nominalism. Not Popper's 'bricolage' style piece by piece mode of governance (methodological nominalism). That was my answer.

No, we had not. That's a flat-out lie.

Incidentally, the exchange was archived right here on SDA. Unfortunately for you.

the one who self-defines themself

I see that your grammar is about as sound as your knowledge of philosophy.

I suppose there may be some Marquis of Queensbury rule against this in a debate, but I *completely* agree with you Johan that "The principle of Self Ownership" is the key. For there are only two things I know for sure, (1) existence exists, and (2) I (and only I) am me. There lay my axioms, everything else is as I see it a deduction, Dr. Watson.

The "responsible for not having irresponsible property" clause, ET, is designed to guard the case where someone uses freedom of property to behave irresponsibly, even if they didn't themselves use excessive force &c, via the property as proxy. For example, having a high pressure boiler in a place that might be occupied by more than yourself without getting it tested by a competent steam engineer or a regular basis according to current known best practice within the profession. That's just irresponsible.

Well, pretty much. I certainly think you should be free to live by yourself in a room with an unsafe boiler in the middle of a 1,000 acre property, as long as you put up big orange signs all around the periphery clearing stating: "Warning, idiot lives here, unsafe high-pressure steam boiler, do no approach."

Or maybe not. After all, what happens if an innocent EMT comes to save your life after your cat accidentally dials 911 and your booby-trapped property injures him? Like I said, it's all a fine balancing act.

Oh, and in passing, Dawg is being silly.

“Right now, the spotlight is on Caledonia, but in reality all of these others parcels of land will be affected, including much of Brantford.”

The flags at the corner of Gretzky Parkway and Henry Street has been mounted on a permanent flagpole. The purple Six Nations flag flies above a red Mohawk Warriors flag.

Native flags flying over properties in city

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentID=82790&catname=Local+News

Speaking of terrorists......
Now it will really start. The other Bands are watching. Of that you can be sure.

canadian in turban? makes me sick)

canadian that hates US makes me sick))

do you love Canada?

Gosh, with a little fine-tuning at this point, I could be some left-wing version of "george."

I apologize to all for allowing myself to be provoked. It won't happen again.

I'm not sure about "existence exists," though, Vittie. Sounds a little word-saladish, no? Bad enough to claim that existence is a predicate. Well, no matter. Have at it.

A is A. Is is. Existence exists. The alternative is a singularity. It's just my opinion, but I'm not buying that. Nature abhors a singularity. You can't divide by zero. I could talk about it all night, but we would be off topic, so I'll leave it at that.

I see that your grammar is about as sound as your knowledge of philosophy.

Totally gratuitous, snarky and out of bounds.

Guilty as charged. But this from the person who, this very month, addressed the following comment to me:

Are you brain-dead?

S/he that is without sin among you, let her first cast a stone at him. :)

Iraqi Reformist on Arab Society and Social Schizophrenia

June 21, 2006
http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD119006#_edn1

In an article titled "Arab Society and Schizophrenia," Iraqi reformist Dr. Abd Al-Khaleq Hussein, who writes on several reformist websites, argues that Arab society suffers from "social schizophrenia," - the symptoms of which are similar to those of individuals suffering from actual schizophrenia. He further argues that the Arab governments must immediately launch social and political reforms which will gradually lead to democracy in the Arab world. If significant reforms are not carried out, he says, disasters will continue to strike the Arab word, and democracy will ultimately be imposed upon it through violent upheavals, as occurred in Iraq. In the article, he also called upon the Arabs to accept the help offered to them by the West - and especially by the U. S. - with the aim of facilitating positive change that will permit them to integrate into the international community.

The following are excerpts from the article: [1]

"This Split Personality Disorder Characterizes Not Only Specific Sectors of Arab Society, But [Also] the Governments, the Institutions of Civil Society, and the [Political] Parties"

"'Schizophrenia' is a word in ancient Greek that means 'split personality'... but it is also used in the social sciences to describe societies afflicted by severe duality in their behavior and their [moral] standards. In fact, if we carefully compare the medical and social forms of this disorder, we will find that the symptoms are very similar...

"Iraqi social scientist Ali Al-Wardi was the first to characterize the Iraqi people as suffering from this severe social illness, which he labeled 'split personality.' According to his theory, Iraqis suffer... from a conflict between the Bedouin values that have been passed down through the generations and the cultural values that the Iraqi society has acquired...

"As an illustration, he presents the example of a young Iraqi who wishes to choose his own wife, just like an enlightened Western man, and to exchange love letters with her,... but when he hears that some other man has similar relations with his sister or cousin, he immediately turns into a 'Bedouin' and murders his beloved sister and her lover...
via voy forums

Let the one who lives not in a glass house cast the first stone.

My goodness I'm being concilliatory tonight, I'm sure it will pass ;-) But enough with the politically correct version. If I may take some liberty (does that make this on topic?) on Kate's dime...

There was this king on this tropical island who lived in a majestic palace, made of grass, with a grand grass throne. Indeed, the king got into the habit of collecting grass thrones, 'till the place was filled to the rafters.

One day the fire got out of the pit, and the whole edifice collapsed in a horrible conflagration.

Which only goes to show, people who live in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones.

Unless you're on a beach throwing pebbles at seagulls. Leave no tern unstoned. Or lying on the beach at high noon sans bathing suit. No stern untoned...

Enough. Beer and TV beckon.

I'll leave that stone unturned.

Personally,I am sick to death of polls.They are no more than manufactured news and in many cases are manipulated or biased in choice of questions.
Besides...does polling Canadians,basically,about how SCARED they are of terrorists,really accomplish anything?I would suggest that this only undermines our resolve agaist this threat and gives terrorists feedback on their performance...Same goes with polling about the support of the Afgan. mission.I'm not telling anybody here they have to support this mission,however,since our parliament has OK'd our continued presence there,do we not have a responsibility to unite behind our troops and stand defiant against our enemy?
It disgusts me when I see people put their own selfish interests ahead of the security of their country.(A LPC trademark,I might add}

"We're being challenged by 9/11. Al-Qaida and the al-Qaida-like organizations that exist in various countries are fully aware that their actions put our kind of civil society in a dilemma. And I think they want us to be in that dilemma."

I think that the only dilemma for Al-Qaida is how to get from one rats hole to the other, as befits those who do not have the Courage to confront their enemy in an honourable manner. The dilemma for our civil society is how to give congratulations to out security forces.

skip - no, law is not relativistic. You are moving into ethical and moral relativism - and I reject that. There ARE universal principles of human rights - the basic few are well articulated in the US constitution, as equality, life and the pursuit of happiness. These are not relativistic.

You're mixing apples and oranges here. Rights are not laws. Laws are the products of ethical and moral relativism. Intuitively so, if you think about it. Principles are not laws either. Laws embrace principles, but laws are amoral - laws can be written to speak to either side of a principle. It is legal to abort/it is illegal to abort. Which you chose is entirely a product of your moral and ethical relativism.

Now, when you move into economies and different economies (agricultural, non-industrial, industrial, etc etc) then the laws referring to these economies are contextual to that. That doesn't mean 'relativistic'. It means contextual to the reality.

Huh? anything that is contextual must, by definition, be relativistic. There is no context without relation.

skip - you are right.
Rights are not laws. But I don't think that laws are totally the products of ethical and moral relativism. My point is that there are some basic human rights; the laws that affirm those rights can't be ethically and morally relativistic.

Agreed, other laws are internal or relativistic to the society - whether it is legal to abort or not to abort depends on the decision of the society. This then asks the question whether or not that law ought to be moved into a universal rather than relative connection.

You may think I'm quibbling, but I don't agree that a law that is contextual is 'relativistic'. It is relational and 'relation' does not mean the same thing as 'relative'.

My view of 'relative' is an understanding that the evaluation of the law is subjective and is made without reference to objective reality.

A 'relational' or contextual law is one that operates within the context of an external situation. So, a law that says that milk products must be refrigerated is relational. It operates within the context of an external situation.

But, a law that says that people must bow their heads as the national flag is brought by, is relative to the internal 'psyche' of the nation.

ET read maz2 @ 6.56PM. Here is a person who is terrorised first by 6 nations and then by the Ont gov and then by the fed gov by not protecting her/him. This makes all three of them terrorists.
Thanks maz2 for the assist.

CAW. No, you are wrong. Because I feel 'in terror' at the actions of X Person, does not make X person a terrorist.

Defining reality by subjective experience is an invalid method. After all, I could feel terrorized by the relentless snowstorms. Does that make the weather a terrorist? The definition has to be within the actor, not the recipient of the action.

Because I feel threatened by the lack of response of the Ontario gov't does not make the Ontario gov't a terrorist agent.

Terrorism is the use of unlawful violence against persons and/or property to coerce a gov't into compliance with a mode of behaviour that is not valid within that society. So, the Caledonia natives were terrorists. The Ontario and Federal gov'ts were not terrorists. The Ontario gov't may have been deficient in its actions, irresponsible, even criminal but not terrorist.

Russian Diplomats Executed

CNN ... via free republic
...-

Ivan the Russian pled for their release:

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Russian diplomats 'to be killed'
Russia "did everything for Iraq not to find itself in the situation that it is in today", Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, referring to Moscow's ...
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5102532.stm - 44k -

ET, I almost always agree with everything you write, but, CAW has a point even though he was being flippant. Terrorists need an environment where the media will get their atrocities on the airwaves in a timely fashion and a vacuum without law and order as their optimal environment. Both criteria have been met in Caldonia. It is long overdue for the authorities to stop the little native terrorist gig going on in Caledonia. The authorities aren't terrorists, but, it isn't a stretch to admonished them for complicity by inaction at this point.

Very good article in NY Times Magazine:

"After Londonistan"
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/magazine/25london.html

Mark
Ottawa

'temporary security' bla bla bla.

perhaps mr chamberlain missed that chapter in his american history courses and didnt get to use the caveat in 1939. look where that got things.

bullies THRIVE in the presence of meekness. it doesnt dissuade them, it envigorates them.

Im a pacifist. it occurred to me that word contains the word FIST.

I am in the process of getting the 60s peace symbol tattooed on my rt thigh with a scripture reference matthew 5:9. look it up. hint: in the old west a colt 45 was known as a peacemaker.

if the agressor is adamant, you kill them and then go back to farming or cutting hair or selling stocks, whatever.

its the way the world works.

Im grateful bernard shaw and the wookie unilateral disarmamists didnt hold sway, we would either be enslaved in some version or Orwell's '1984' or 1000 times more radioactive than chernobyl.

Ivan asks: "Why can't we all just get along"? Da? ...

Be My Friend

Aesop's fable about the The Man, the Boy, and the Donkey is meant to bring home the point that it's impossible to please everyone -- and that it is useless to try. That ancient story anticipates the difficulty of trying to win friends in the Jihad. Marvin Katz, writing for the United Press International described how Russian efforts to placate Islamic anger over Chechnya by supporting Islamic causes everywhere else did not keep their diplomats from being kidnapped in Iraq.

One of Moscow's principal foreign policy aims has been to prevent opposition to Russian intervention in Chechnya from rising up in the Middle East and the broader Muslim world. ... And so Moscow, especially under Putin, has assiduously worked to convince the Muslim world that, unlike America, Russia is its friend. When America insisted on intervening in Iraq, Russia strenuously objected -- both at the time of the intervention and ever since. When the United States called for democratization in the Middle East, Russia indicated its willingness to work with existing authoritarian governments as they are. When the United States calls for sanctions or other strong measures in response to the Iranian nuclear program, Russia calls for restraint and even sticks up for Tehran. When the United States refused to talk to Hamas after it won the Palestinian parliamentary elections earlier this year, Russia hosted a Hamas delegation in Moscow.

Numerous other examples could be cited. Part of Moscow's aim in taking these actions seems to be to convey to Muslims that Russia supports so many causes dear to them that they should not concern themselves over what is happening in Chechnya. Moscow would prefer that Muslims actually support Russian actions there, but will be grateful if they are merely indifferent -- just as long as they do not actively support the Chechen rebels.

But Moscow's triangulation did not work as planned. The BBC recently reported the execution of four Russian diplomats in Iraq over Chechnya. ...-
belmont club

ET: "You refer to monitoring of our email and phone. How does that affect your freedom and liberty? "

Today? Maybe not much. But let's say that the Libranos get re-elected and decide that they want to monitor the phone calls of, oh, I don't know, members of the CPC? And then when they find activist members, schedule unwholesome things like tax audits, etc., to annoy and harass them?

But I suspect that example is a bit ridiculous. It's not like the Libranos are a criminal organization or anything.

Kevinb, I do not think that assumption is at all ridiculous regardless of who is in power.

That is why a sytem of checks and balance is so important to a free society.

Also I would like to read more discussion on the effects that unity or the lack thereof can have on security and liberty.

Unity always seems like it is the third rail of Canadian politics.