Over at Tart Cider, Chris Selley (tipping hat to none other than that well-regarded intellectual paperweight, Antonia Zerbisias) fairly reeks of dismissiveness towards this post focusing on the inability of the CBC to comprehend that a state-funded media ought not declare itself neutral towards an enemy bent on its destruction.
Though I knew it was a waste of electrons, I left a comment and moved on.
Then, as it so happened, I surfed over to Norm Geras’ site to read this by Alan Johnston;

I’ve had enough. I awoke today at 7am. By 7.23am I’d heard two apologias for suicide bombing. I wake to the BBC’s Today programme, you see. A nice woman presenter politely thanked both apologists very much for their time.
I turned off and turned on my PC. At the BBC website I find the Tory Party Vice- Chair Sayeeda Warsi saying, ‘Mr Blair should negotiate with the terrorists. We need to bring these groups into the fold of the democratic process. As long as we exclude them and don’t hear them out, we will allow them to continue their hate.’
I reflect that I last heard this from Tony Benn � the hero of my youth whom I now think a dangerous political idiot – speaking on BBC’s Newsnight on the evening of 7/7 (and before that from Mo Mowlam about Bin Laden). I then notice the BBC has a story about ‘Muslim reactions to 7/7’. First voice up, top of the screen, is Dr Imran Waheed, the media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir (Britain), who says, ‘What is required is for the whole society to accept responsibility for 7/7’. Hizb ut-Tahrir is a racist anti-Semitic organisation that supports suicide bombings.

So to Chris Selley, whose defense of the CBC’s aversion to the use of the word “terrorist” seems to boil down to “everyone else is doing it”, all I can offer is tosecond Mr. Johnston’s advice – that you might try reading a little less Amazing Wonderdog and a little more Tony Blair.
Or Norm Geras, for that matter.

Mark Johnson, Imprint staff. (U of Waterloo)

Like many Canadians, I reacted with a mixture of shock, sorrow and anger to the news of the horrifying terrorist attacks in downtown London, now dubbed “7/7.” The disaster, which took the lives of 52 people and counting, has even been referred to as England’s own September 11th.
I see things entirely differently. The deluded band of egocentric, paranoid terrorists that I think have made up the present and past governments of the United States of America has been launching petty, cowardly attacks on legitimate sovereign nations for decades, and 9/11 was something they had coming to them.
The World Trade Centre and the Pentagon I think were government-connected targets, and those attacks were not aimed at the general population.
In London, on the other hand, it was the mass transit system that was blown up, harming no one but civilians. The bombings were evidently retaliation for the British involvement in the American-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
After the Madrid bombings, which were timed to coincide with a national election, Spanish voters threw out an arrogant liar of a president � who sent their troops to die in Iraq � and elected a socialist who soon withdrew the troops to safety. In doing so, Spain wisely diminished its chances of provoking another attack.
We in Canada think of ourselves as relatively safe from terrorists, but were it not for the intelligent, thoughtful decision of an awesome former Prime Minister, Jean Chr�tien, to keep our troops out of the Iraq quagmire, it’s more than likely that we’d now be in line for some sort of terrorist attack.
Thank heavens we had (and continue to have) the Liberal Party of Canada in office!
[…]
R.I.P. to the victims of the London massacre and likewise to the victims of the U.S./U.K. massacres in Iraq and elsewhere. What goes around comes around, I suppose.

[emphasis mine]
Mark’s Angelfire homepage is probably subject to bandwidth limits, so I’ve quoted it in the extended entry.

“I serve as a director for the Liberal Party of Canada in my riding of Kitchener-Conestoga, and am obviously also a member of that prestigious political party. “

*Information was current as of Feb. 2005 – still trying to get confirmation on his current status with the riding ass’n.

Continue reading →

“Activities which degrade men or women through sexual stereotyping, or exploit the bodies of men, women, boys or girls solely for the purpose of attracting attention, are not permitted on Nathan Phillips Square.”

There, says Ms. Reid. Miss Universa non grata. She can come. But no sash, no tiara.

The big parade ends Gay Pride week which began on June 18th when the Rainbow Flag was raised in Nathan Philips Square in front of City Hall.

More photos of the welcomed parade participants. Not work safe.
(Not lunch safe, for that matter.)

I opined some time ago, that those who were coming down on the pro side of same sex marriage hadn’t considered all the consequences – one being the newly elevated status of gay couples when petitioning courts for custody of children from one partner’s previous marriage. (Contrary to popular belief, homosexuals have always had the right to marry. My long list of divorced gay friends puts to the lie to that one.) I asked the hypothetical question: “How would a judge view a situation in which a former husband, who, after leaving his wife for a new lover turned spouse, petitions for primary custody of his young children, on the basis of higher income and more stable home life, complete with the ability of his new partner to be a “stay at home” parent? What of her concerns about her sons being raised by a gay man she barely knows – can she even give voice to those?”
Now, “Angry” has a not so hypothetical case regarding adoption.

Would he [an Ontario family law judge], once gay marriage was entrenched, and in keeping with our government’s current equity legislation in the workplace, feel obliged to fast-track gays’ access to available children to make up for “past injustices” and their “disability” on the procreative front? And what about a single mother willing to give up her child for adoption, provided the baby went to a heterosexual couple? Whose rights would be privileged, hers or those of gay adoptive applicants?
The judge paused, then said, “I haven’t ever really thought about it.” Eventually the judge opined that a gay married couple’s rights should trump a biological mother’s right to have her child raised in a normative family. And on further reflection, he decided, he would also be partial to equity adoption policies for gays.

Discuss. (Be sure to read his post and the comments, first)
And be civil, or you’ll be tossed.

Success doesn’t pay.

“Just imagine working hard to build up a life and a future for your family, then someone comes and takes it all away and nothing can be done about it. The perpetrators have impunity. No, not Africa, its down home Manitoba where its good to be the chief.”

Some stories just tell themselves…..

B.C.’s Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that the International Village Mall in Vancouver discriminated against aboriginal people.
Complainant Gladys Radek was awarded $15,000 in the tribunal’s decision Wednesday. Radek claimed she and other native people had been discriminated against by security guards at the mall, who continually barred them from entering the mall.
Human Rights Tribunal member Lindsay Lyster agreed. In her decision, she says the mall’s owner, Henderson Development, and Securigard, the mall’s former security company, “established a pattern of systemic discrimination.”
[…]
It was mall policy to deny access to people who had dirty clothing, open sores and wounds, red eyes, and who were acting intoxicated. Lyster ruled that the policy created practices that had an unfair and discriminatory effect on aboriginal people.

H/T Vancouver Housing Market Blog
update
Maxed Out Mama has read the ruling in full and has provided some damning quotes from the judge that may actually reinforce the CBC’s quote above – which I originally thought was just very poorly thought out wording. (Bonus – Ward Churchill makes an “anonymous” appearance in the comments!)

CNN (Reuters);

The European Commission said it was initiating legal action against 11 states which had failed to incorporate the rules into national noise pollution legislation, which should have been done by July 2004.
The states are Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and Britain.
[…]
The rules require states to draw maps that track the level of noise from cars, planes, machinery and other sources in areas inhabited by more than 100,000 people. Busy intersections or traffic networks are also targeted.
Once the maps are established, the states must formulate a plan to make the area quieter.

Via Blog Quebecois who thinks it’s a clever counter-terrorist initiative. On the other hand, Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas did have this to say;

“The EU’s objective is to substantially reduce the number of people in Europe affected by noise by 2012..”

So, I suppose there are alternative ways to meet the objective….

” . . . It’s important for each and every Saskatchewan citizen to phone their relatives in Alberta and make sure that publicly in Alberta the Canadian perspective around community responsibility for health care remains at the forefront of what the policymakers are doing.” – Saskatchewan Health Minister John Nilson

Those would be same relatives who left Saskatchewan’s glorious utopian system behind in search of… what do they call it, again … ?
Oh, right – “Not Saskatchewan”.
David Maclean asks how long it’s going to be before some intrepid reporter asks Nilson ” whether it is at all appropriate for a minister of the crown to organizing political campaigns in other provinces. “
(Via Dust My Broom.)

As the post mortems continue over the conviction of David Ahenakew, I am reminded of a post by “Raskolnikov” at Dust My Broom” this past April;

It looks like the radical left�s investment in the Aboriginal community is finally paying off. While aboriginal students across the country study the evil ways of Europeans, imbibing lefty saints like Foucault and Said, the Big Pimp Indians are laying the foundation of absurd logic and hatred that the left needs in place to perpetuate future generations of dissent. For anyone who has studied history, this should ring an ominous bell.
[…]
Pick up books assigned to studies of native history, self-government or politics, and the radical bent is obvious. For all the lip service about how we have to turn to our elders and our traditions for guidance, it would appear that our elders include Noam Chomsky and our traditions include anarchy. We are supposed to be peace-loving people yet we study and believe theories espousing violent revolution, anarchy and reverse-racism. Go to sites like Friends of Grassy Narrows, Resist, Redwire or Winnipeg IndyMedia and you can see, for yourself, the radicalism that permeates the aboriginal community, at least among the activists. Even more tragic, few stop to wonder about this and can only resort to inane rebuttals about the oppression being so deterministic how can we do anything else but long for bloodshed and violence? It’s our only option.
Now, with people like David Ahenakew and Terry Nelson, who, despite being an illiterate criminal is still a “role model” in the sense that he shows how horribly easy it is to become chief when you don’t let things like a lack of spelling skills and morals handcuff you, spurting their racist bile, the radical left sowing has produced its first sprout peeking out of the dirt.
Ahenakew is the most obvious product of such indoctrination: the Jews started WWII, they control the world, are a disease, they slaughter innocent Palestinians on their way to charity drives. He may as well be reading from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or, for that matter, an Eric Margolis column.

You need to read it all.

Peter Warren is reading emails of listeners who are on waiting lists for heart pacemakers.
Some of the writers have been waiting for months for consultations with a specialist (with no surgery in sight) including those whose symptoms have rendered them incapacitated.
So, to our “Two Tier Medicare Would Destroy Canadian Identity And Turn Us Into Godfull Americans” flapping mouths in media – who’s going to be first to ask her office how long Queen Adrienne waited for hers?

If you are 80 years old, unwell, and live in the province of Manitoba, seeing your doctor may just cost you and your family everything they own.

“I commend the RCMP for their approach.There are people who have been denied opportunities for much too long simply because they don’t show ability in their desired field. Our belated recognition as a society of the emotional wounds caused by overly strict hiring standards is a watershed event.
This more enlightened approach to hiring should be more broadly implemented, so as to include fire and rescue workers, surgeons, airline pilots, electricians, civil engineers, air-traffic controllers, S.W.A.T. team snipers, rodeo clowns…
Together, we can make this a better world.”

…because good journalism entails understanding more than just the neighborhood you grew up in.

Amen.

In a story revealing that Canadian physicians are setting aside doses of the antiviral drug Tamiflu for family and friends in the event that forecasts of a bird flu pandemic are borne out, the CBC lists the reasons against “stockpiling”:

Infectious disease specialist Dr. Allison McGeer of Toronto’s Mount Sinai said she understands why some of her colleagues are acquiring a personal stockpile of Tamiflu. Ethically, though, she said the federal government should be protecting everyone.
“The best protection if we don’t have vaccine is one dose of prophylactic for every Canadian for every day for two waves of the pandemic,” McGeer said.
The idea of personal stockpiles of Tamiflu worries most public health officials like McGeer, and some are advising doctors against writing the prescriptions.
The reasons against stockpiling are:

The resistance hypothesis � Widespread use of Tamiflu among patients with influenza could lead to resistant strains of flu, potentially making the drug useless.

Shelf-life: Tamiflu is only guaranteed for five years, yet no one knows when a pandemic will hit.

Equity: At $5 per pill, not everyone will be able to afford a personal stockpile.

Emphasis mine.
We have just been reminded that simply having the financial resources to purchase your own medications is reason enough to be denied access to them.
This is what Trudeaupia has come to. We are rapidly moving past the “equity” of months long waiting lists and zero-tier Health Care Prohibition Zones into a hyper-socialist model where “universality” is defined as a government policy that applies as equally to health care denied as it does health care provided.
With a shelf life of 5 years, a family’s investment in Tamiflu works out to $1 a year per pill, per person. In the insanity that has become the Canadian health care system, this fact is actually cited as a reason not to allow Canadians to make it.
Without saying so in so many words, official government policy towards the pandemic we are all being warned is coming, is this: until every Canadian can afford to set aside a handful of $5 pills, death equity for Canadians will remain official Canadian Government policy.

Gateway Pundit;

With a program called “Drive out the Trash” you get a sense of how President Mugabe feels about certain Zimbabweans. And, when the government destroys their homes, destroys their means of earning a living, and destroys their food, in a country already threatened with famine,… only time separates these people from certain death.
The genocide has begun in Zimbabwe.

There’s video. Normblog has personal accounts that are sickening.
Of course, all of this suffering and poverty could be alleviated if only the industrialized countries would give more.

In keeping with my recent trend of ‘all gay, all the time’ here at SDA, I am pleased to present the following news item to you:

Police officers who arrested a student for calling a police horse “gay” have been accused of “absurd heavy-handedness and over-reaction” by a leading campaigner for homosexual rights.

Peter Tatchell of the pressure group Outrage! said that the arrest of Sam Brown, a student at Oxford University, “brought the police service into disrepute”.

Mr Brown, 21, a student at Balliol College, was arrested for causing harassment, alarm or distress and fined �80 after asking a mounted police officer if he knew that his horse was homosexual.

The student made the remark during a night out in Oxford where he was celebrating completing his English Literature degree.

Apparently the police refused to comment further on the matter and thus the Telegraph was unable to confirm that the arrest was prompted by the fact that Mr. Brown was ‘hung like a horse’.

Arthur Weinreb has a blistering editorial on the health care system of the Great White North in today’s Canada Free Press.
Supreme Court said what politicians won’t say

[…] In the decision of Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) that was handed down on Thursday by the Supreme Court of Canada, the court found that Quebec laws that prohibit the purchase of insurance to cover private medical treatment violated the Quebec Charter and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The majority of the court found that waiting times in the public system violated the Quebec Charter of Rights. While it was not necessary to decide, three of the justices found that the Quebec law violates section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights that guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person. The court held that delays in the public health system led to prolonged pain and suffering, deteriorating medical conditions and in some cases, death. In coming to this conclusion in what will inevitably be to the dismay of those on the political left, the Supreme Court followed its 1998 decision in R. v. Morgentaler that held that delays encountered by women seeking abortions breached section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The interesting aspect of the Chaoulli decision, and the one that most deviated from what politicians of all political parties have been spewing for years was the finding that this breach of a charter right was not reasonable. The court found that while the preservation of a publicly funded health care system was a substantive and legitimate government objective, the outright ban on private health care insurance had no rational connection to saving the public system and went further than was necessary to meet that objective. In the majority�s opinion, the government of Quebec failed to show that allowing Quebeckers to purchase insurance for private health care would destroy Canada�s public health care system. In reaching this conclusion the court examined other countries in the OECD such as Sweden and the U.K. that have strong public health care systems despite allowing private parallel health care services.
This finding is at odds with what the politicians have been saying for years; that not only will allowing private medical services destroy our health care system; it will destroy Canada as we know it. The entire fabric of our society will disappear. We are constantly being told that our health care system is what defines us as a country. Allow someone to actually pay for what is now a public service and we will be no different than the United States.
[…]
The Supreme Court of Canada was right � the public system as we know it will not end. But hopefully Chaoulli will mark the beginning of the end to all the political spin where the reality of the existence private medical care is denied. Perhaps it will also mark an end to this notion that it is better to allow people to suffer and die than it is to allow them to have access to private treatment.

Of course, allowing those with the means to escape the socialist system to do so creates inequality. There are a not insubstantial number of people who would indeed prefer that outcome.
crossposted to OTB

I’ve been following the various reactions to today’s Supreme Court decision. Mainly what I’m hearing is that ‘it’s the end of health care, yadda yadda yadda.’ Whatever. Everyone is missing the point as usual.

The point is that for the first time in my lifetime there is actually a reason for someone living in Canada to move to Quebec. I don’t think that’s been the case since, um… Since… Confederation.

Hehhh.

Canadian Court Chips Away at National Health Care (NYT RSS)

The Canadian Supreme Court struck down a Quebec law banning private medical insurance today, dealing an acute blow to the publicly financed national health care system. The court stopped short of striking down the constitutionality of the country’s vaunted nationwide coverage, but legal experts said the ruling would open the door to a wave of lawsuits challenging the health care system in other provinces.
The system, providing Canadians with free doctor’s services that are paid for by taxes, has generally been supported by the public, and is broadly identified with the Canadian national character. But in recent years, patients have been forced to wait longer for diagnostic tests and elective surgery, while the wealthy and well connected either seek care in the United States or use influence to jump ahead on waiting lists.
The court ruled that the waiting lists had become so long that they violated patients’ “liberty, safety and security” under the Quebec charter, which covers about one-quarter of Canada’s population. “The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread and that in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care,” the Supreme Court ruled. “In sum, the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services.”
The case was brought to the Supreme Court by a Montreal family doctor, Jacques Chaoulli, who argued his own case through the courts, and by a chemical salesman, George Zeliotis, who was forced to wait a year for a hip replacement while being prohibited from paying privately for surgery

Interesting. In the United States, many advocates of nationalized health care point to the Canadian model as an exemplar. Perhaps they should rethink that.
via OTB