Scandalous climate science at the UK Met Office

For some very revealing insights into the behaviour of a major UN IPCC scientific contributor check out this post on Steve McIntyre’s ‘Climate Audit’ entitled ‘Fortress Met Office continued’.

Climate Audit has been tracking efforts to obtain documentation from the UK Met Office (see note below) pertaining to its role as a UN IPCC reviewer. The Met Office’s response to requests for information has been repeated stonewalling and evasion - all of which makes them look worse at every turn. The comments make compelling reading and lead into some very interesting nooks and crannies including:

Hanky panky at the Met Office
This comment provided a fascinating link involving 31 year old Katie Hopkins who had been hired by the Met Office as a "global brand consultant" at a salary of £90,000 (~ $180,000). Some questions arise:

- What does a government weather forecasting and climate research organization need a "global brand consultant" for?
- A salary of £90,000 for a 31 year old game show contestant and self-admitted ‘manizer’?

It’s not clear whether the reason for her firing was being photographed in a compromising position (photo below) with a married Met Office colleague. One wag commented:" - when it comes to climate change no one can accuse the Met Office of sitting on the fence!"


Note: The UK Met Office promotes itself "As the UK’s foremost climate research centre, the Met Office Hadley Centre was the single most influential scientific contributor to the [IPCC] Working Group I report – The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change."

Intimidated oilmen

Speaking of "deniers" and intimidation, Lawrence Solomon recently gave a speech to intimidated oilmen at the Petroleum Club and tried to salve their guilt and stiffen their backbones:

James Hansen ... wants you in court. "CEOs of fossil energy companies ... should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature."

Come to think of it, David Suzuki also sees those who abet CO2 emissions as criminals.

And you know what, I bet some of you see yourselves as criminals — or something close to it — because there’s something in human nature that makes us feel guilty, even for crimes we didn’t commit, let alone for non-crimes. And I bet some of your friends and associates might look at you sideways. And your children may be teased and made to feel guilty about what their dad does for a living.

But on the global warming issues, based on the evidence to date, you have nothing to feel guilty about. Albertans have nothing to feel guilty about either. No crime has been committed. No known harm has occurred. You’ve been had.

Even more, you’ve been cowed into silence. Instead of making your case to the public, instead of defending yourselves and your industry, you’ve thrown in the towel, or tried to be greener than green, hoping to avoid recrimination.

Not only is there no consensus, the scientists who are skeptics — the deniers — have extraordinary credentials, people at the very top echelons of the scientific establishment. They are the Who’s Who of Science.

Not only do they disagree with the UN conclusions, they often value CO2 for the benefits it provides the planet.

On global warming, the science is not settled. You have the facts on your side. But facts will count for naught as long as you see the battle as lost.

Great stuff. We need a lot more of the likes of Lawrence Solomon and Rex Murphy in the mainstream media. In my local press I'm inundated with climate hysteria and harassment from green freaks, including my government who this week sent me a "Climate action dividend" cheque for $100 along with a long list of bullcrap suggestions for nice green things I should do with it (hint: It's going straight into my gas tank!)

Science by intimidation

Rex Murphy shares his thoughts on intimidator James Hansen. Some snippets:

Truth may enter the world by many doors, but she is never escorted by force.

In the dawn of the Enlightenment, it was scientists who were hauled before tribunals and inquisitions.

I am drawn to these thoughts, and to the long-decayed example of the Inquisition, by a most curious outburst this week by James Hansen, the principal voice of NASA on the subject of global warming.

Not all the world shares Dr. Hansen's vision of imminent ecological Armageddon.... Serious minds ...

... question the models of climatological speculation;

... question the peculiar mix of man-made and other likely sources of climate dynamics;

... question some of the data gathering and some of its interpretation;

... question the very maturity of the highly complex, and experimentally deficient science of global warming itself. ...

... seriously question, too, the massive policy prescriptions that are being insisted upon ...

But, to Dr. Hansen's agitated mind, those who raise such questions, who inject skepticism into the global warming debate, are "deniers."... a singular slur.

Dr. Hansen is overfond of the specious and chilling analogy: He has written of the "crashing glaciers serv(ing) as a Krystal Nacht".

This week, Dr. Hansen went a step even more noxiously forward. He called for a tribunal, or as I prefer to call it, an Inquisition, to put on trial for crimes against nature and humanity the CEOs of the big oil companies ...

Is this a scientist speaking? If so, it is more than curious that in the 21st century it is the scientist calling for the secular equivalent of an inquisition.

This is the voice of the scientist-activist consumed with his own virtue and fearful of all dispute.

Impressive. Stick that in your tinfoil hat, James Hansen!

CHRC drops the Maclean's / Steyn case

A Ezra Levant put it: "The CHRC blinks". That was my prediction for the BC HRT decision which is still an open question; but given the CHRC decision it seems even more likely that the BC Tribunal will follow suit.

Regardless - Fire. Them. All.

Conrad Black loses appeal

Bad news. Conrad Black's convictions were upheld by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. His attorney, Andrew Frey:

[said further] steps could include petitioning the judicial panel for another hearing or taking Lord Black's case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

... criticized the ruling for containing a number of factual errors. In arguing that Lord Black did not receive a fair trial, he declared the case the weakest he had seen in his 45-year legal career.

Here's the entire Seventh Court ruling.

James Hansen - talking through his tinfoil hat

Leading climate scientist James Hansen spoke on June 23rd at the National Press Club and at a Briefing to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global Warming.

He had little new to say on anything within his area of expertise as a climate scientist. On global warming he repeated the alarmism he’s noted for, exaggerating already exaggerated levels of "certainty". Then there are the floods, droughts, forest fires, melting Greenland ice sheet, extinction of animal and plant species, yada, yada, blah, blah:

...a wide gap has developed between what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community and what is known by policymakers and the public.

The "relevant scientific community"? That would be those that agreed with him - the well known ‘consensus’.

...frank assessment of scientific data yields conclusions that are shocking to the body politic. Now, as then, I can assert that these conclusions have a certainty exceeding 99 percent.

Right, "a certainty exceeding 99 percent". And the scientific basis for this would be? There is none. Also his freshly exaggerated "certainty" greatly exceeds the already dubious 90% certainty claimed by the IPCC in its recent Fourth Assessment Report.

Everything else he said was in the realm of politics or musings on the edges of economics. For example:

Hansen the raging demagogue:

... fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link.

CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.

Hansen the amateur economist:

Yes, a carbon tax. Carbon tax with100 percent dividend is needed to wean us off fossil fuel addiction. Tax and dividend allows the marketplace, not politicians, to make investment decisions.

Maybe it’s time to bring back an old use for oil. Just like they did in Boston back 1774, a citizens ‘committee’ of regular Americans should gather at Hansen’s next speaking event and treat him to a good old public tarring and feathering.

[via]

Update: Terence Corcoran

Stormtroopers in clown shoes

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit commenting on the Maclean's/Steyn case at the BC "Human Rights" Tribunal:

When the stormtroopers wear clown shoes instead of jackboots, it's easy to forget that they're still stormtroopers.

[via]

Global warming increases earthquake intensity

This obviously dubious (idiotic) story published by the Globe and Mail was also reported by a number of other gullible mainstream news outlets:

New research compiled by Australian scientist Dr Tom Chalko shows that global seismic activity on Earth is now five times more energetic than it was just 20 years ago.

The research proves that destructive ability of earthquakes on Earth increases alarmingly fast and that this trend is set to continue, unless the problem of "global warming" is comprehensively and urgently addressed.

[...]

The story is completely debunked and mercilessly ridiculed by Climate Audit and its readers. Ross McKitrick makes the following outstanding observations:

Worst science reporting on global warming since… all the other science reporting on global warming.

It’s fun to pile on about this particular fiasco, but in the end it only differs in degree, not in kind, from what we have grown used to. Years of credulous repetition of increasingly alarmist chicken-little garbage in the mainstream press, the exquisite media and academic silence about the countless inaccuracies and falsehoods in Al Gore’s speeches and movie, etc., etc., have created a situation in which any drivel, no matter how obviously nonsensical, gets uncritical headline hype in the world’s press, as long as it promotes public terror about global warming.

Up until now the mainstream press has set the needle at 9, as regards reporters’ willingness to pass along worthless BS for the good of the cause. This guy pushed the needle to 9.01, and suddenly everyone’s acting shocked and appalled. We can only hope that there will be a few science reporters out there who will look in the mirror and take stock of what has become of their profession.

[credit]

Undeniable proof

[Credit]

CASHRA 2008 - Part II

Ezra Levant has some interesting comments on the CASHRA 2008 conference.

On a CIC speaker comparing Mark Steyn to a neo-Nazi:

... Wahida Valiante, [CIC president] Elmasry's deputy ... was speaking at a conference of Canada's human rights commissions, paid for by tax dollars.

... the CIC, which currently has two live cases before Canadian HRCs The CIC is still suing Maclean's. It is a party before two HRCs. And yet the HRCs invited the CIC as their guest -- surely paying for her expenses, if not an honorarium.

In other words, they invited one side of the lawsuit. They didn't invite Maclean's or Mark Steyn.

It's the moral and legal equivalent of a judge in a criminal trial inviting the police and prosecutors over to his home for dinner while the trial is still going on.

On guest speaker Pearl Eliadis slamming the "poisonous" Blazing Cat Fur:

1. It's a delight to know that the grassroots campaign for freedom of speech, started on the blogosphere, irritates the professional "human rights" industry so much. I take that as incredible encouragement to keep it up.

2. I'm enormously jealous of Blazing Cat Fur. Good heavens, what do I have to do to get notice by Eliadis? I've been charged with the hate crime of publishing cartoons. What has BCF, that whippersnapper, ever done?

3. Look at Eliadis's complaint against BCF, what Eliadis calls "poisonous" and "appalling": BCF called Eliadis's debate with the great Alan Borovoy at "cage match". Besides a troubling glimpse into the fragility of Eliadis's own self-esteem, it's an insight into just what these HRC workers consider to be "hateful". Because, really, what's the big difference between "hate speech" and speech that is "poisonous and appalling"?

Fire. Them. All.

Free speech “doublethink”

George Jonas on the CHRC's Orwellian free speech:

Few institutions conjure up George Orwell’s dystopia of 1984 as readily as the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Chief Commissioner Lynch made a remark that seemed puzzling. "I’m a free speecher," Ms. Lynch was quoted as saying. "I’m also a human rightser."

Well, yes, dear Commissioner, sure — who isn’t? Free speech is a fundamental human right. It says so in the Charter, just in case a human rights official isn’t sure. If you really are a "free speecher," as you call it, you’re a "human rightser" by definition — and vice versa. The two don’t clash.

Ah, but they do, for the Commissioner.

... balancing perceived contradictions between freedom and human rights is Ms. Lynch’s act on the high wire. Ms. Lynch seems proud of being a free speecher as well as a human rightser, presumably because she considers it an achievement in doublethink ...

Orwell describes the doublethinker as holding "…simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it ...

As Ezra Levant said: "Fire. Them. All".

Paralyzed by politeness and racial politics

Christie Blatchford on the terror trial in Brampton:
"politeness and racial politics" otherwise known as "political correctness".

Read it all here.

You know what is the really sobering thing about that ongoing terror trial in Brampton?
Clue: It's not that there was a plot to attack Canadian targets. And of course there was; the court has heard evidence up the ying-yang that there was just such an enterprise afoot.
[...]
It's that one spring day in 2006, the leader played for a group of young men a nauseating beheading video on his laptop in a restaurant on Danforth Avenue, a main Toronto drag. ... Yet no one appears to have uttered a word in protest.
It's that up at the much-maligned winter training camp held in December, 2005, near Orillia, Ont., members of the group regularly went to the local Tim Hortons wearing their camos ... they were hardly the picture of subtlety. Yet they did it anyway.
... most Torontonians are crippled unto paralysis by the unique combination of innate Canadian politeness and the racial politics of their city, and these guys knew it.

Rein in the Canadian “human rights” industry

Thanks to Blazing Cat Fur I was alerted to the existence of CASHRA (Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies) which just finished its annual conference (CASHRA 2008). Thanks a heap, BCF! :(

Anyhoo, long story short, I spent way too much time aggravating myself reading the conference program and speakers list.

The speakers list included, naturally, many of the likes of OHRC commisar, Barbara Hall. Also speaking was, for example, recently appointed CHRC Board Member Sandi Bell whose appointment announcement from the Justice Department reads, in part:

OTTAWA , February 1, 2008 – The Honourable Rob Nicholson, P.C. Q. C., M.P. for Niagara Falls, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, today announced the appointment of Sandi Bell as a part-time Board Member of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Ms. Bell is a highly respected expert with over 30 years experience .... includ[ing] significant human rights, equality and diversity components ... working the front lines with people of colour, persons with disabilities ... As a female, and an individual of African-Canadian and Aboriginal-First Nations heritage and a person with a physical disability, Ms. Bell’s passion and experience will be a great asset to the mandate of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. [Talk about a shoo-in!]

The program was loaded with the leftist politics of social and legal activism, aboriginal and multi-culti grievance mongering, "poverty" and social engineering along with a liberal doses of ‘mandate’ expansion/meddling. An example of the latter can be found in program item 2a:

2a. Expanding grounds of protection enumerated in Human Rights Codes ....This session explores current efforts to expand enumerated grounds and rights protections in areas such as political affiliation, gender identity, and social condition, providing a suitable background to explore Commission efforts in engaging Communities. [Good grief! But, on the bright side, perhaps "right-wingers" would become a protected minority:)]

What a racket! The need to rein in HRC’s goes well beyond killing HRA Section 13.

Update: See Blazing Cat Fur and Ezra Levant and Ezra again.

Advice for Dr. Moon

Mark Mercer’s column in the Ottawa Citizen today provides Dr. Richard Moon with some philosophical food for thought in his review of the CHRC’s role as thought police, concluding:

...we find in these considerations strong reason for fearing that having an agency charged with suppressing expression will just make things worse.

Prof. Moon, if he appreciates its nature and importance, will have an easy time balancing freedom of expression against our need to be protected from hate messages, for we have no such need. And pretending that we do lands us in the toxic muck of identity politics and the cult of victimization.

The first and only recommendation Prof. Moon should offer, then, is to delete Section 13.

Let’s hope Dr. Moon is listening.

A big day for free speech

It’s a big day for free speech at the National Post, that is, where there’s:

A strong ‘Post’ editorial on the CHRC’s call for a review of its censorship role:

We don't hold out much hope ... the commission handpicked its own investigator.... But mostly we are skeptical because even when calling for the review, chief commissioner Jennifer Lynch demonstrated no clear understanding of free speech or the value of protecting it.

Canada's human rights bodies .... are out of control, far more interested in imposing political correctness than defending free speech.

They have become laws unto themselves, too, routinely suspending rules of evidence that have taken centuries to perfect.

Ms. Lynch herself gets it largely wrong. In an interview with the Post on Tuesday, she exclaimed "I'm a free speecher. I'm also a human rightser," as though the two were separate.

Frankly, we doubt the sincerity of Ms. Lynch's call for review, especially given the timing.
[...]
Human rights commissions might have been created with the noblest intentions. But what they need now is to be pared way back, or eliminated altogether.

Excellent letters:
from Mindy G. Alter, quoting the CHRC’s "commisar-in-chief":

Let's see. By my count, that's four metaphors crammed into one tiny little thought. That certainly qualifies as "cutting-edge" bafflegab, but tends to confirm the impression that what Ms. Lynch and her crew of ever-vigilant thought cops need most desperately has nothing to do with "bores," "equations," "steps" or sharp edges and everything to do with clarity. For it's precisely this type of muddled thinking that has given rise to the current show trial in BC.

It's time to strip Ms. Lynch and the other human rights busy-bodies of their power to hassle us, and give Canadians back the most crucial of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in our Charter.

and Burton Kellock:

The real problem is the scope of human rights commissions are determined by politicians who lack the mental acuity to appreciate what they were doing.

The solution is obvious -- repeal these bad laws. But will the pusillanimous politicians muster the guts to do so?

And, a fine article by Toronto artist Anthony Furey taking Canada’s hypocritical artistic community to task:

[...]
Normally it makes sense to put one’s political clout behind knocking down such an ambiguous bill as C-10. But when artists and supposed advocates of free speech denounce Bill C-10, but not the Maclean’s tribunal, they are not only turning their backs on a fellow creator but also setting themselves up for future persecution by these same tribunals.

I urge ... all the .. prominent persons and organizations that have officially denounced Bill C-10 to recognize that, regardless of Maclean’s’ political bent, the destruction of free speech is far more virulent in the kangaroo courts of our human rights tribunals than in our income tax laws. We have so much more to lose.

Also there’s some great discussion in the comments. One of my favourites:

Re. Anthony Furey’s article by ‘wyatt tune’: Excellent article. i can understand why the average member of the arts community would hate Steyn. He's a genuine iconoclast, thought provoking and literate. Grant sucking artists really hate that kind of thing, they prefer well worn lefty cliches which their friends consider revolutionary and ever so avant garde.

Kudos to the ‘Post’ (and its contributors). It’s clearly way ahead of the rest of the MSM on this issue.

See also: Blazing Cat Fur, Mark Mercer, Ezra Levant

Climate modelers are ‘political’ scientists

Hooray! It’s Junk Science week again at the ‘Post’. Yesterday it was the media ignoring a Health Canada report confirming the safety of 2,4-D herbicide.

Today Terence Corcoran and Roger Pielke, Jr expose climate modelers and their exaggerated claims of accuracy and certainty.

Mr. Corcoran’s column today was special for me because it featured local climate modeler and Nobel (Peace Prize) Laureate, Andrew Weaver or as I prefer to call him, Victoria’s chief ‘political’ scientist, or alternately, Victoria’s chief Chicken Little. He’s the local media’s go-to guy whenever there’s a weather related story that’s proof-positive global warming is upon us. Recently it was lemons growing in a North Saanich backyard ("against a south- facing wall") which the Times Colonist reporter claimed was "a home-grown example of climate change." Naturally, Andrew Weaver was consulted and said: "We know the climate has continued to warm". And, to quote myself: "the bull crap continues to flow."

Corcoran and Pielke point out that the standard claim by climate modelers when commenting on weather events is "it’s consistent with climate change model predictions". But if every weather event is consistent with the models’ predictions then the modelers’ claims are completely meaningless - their models say nothing useful about short term events or trends:

As [Roger Pielke] puts it, there’s nothing that could take place over a period of a decade or less "short of an ice sheet advancing on New York" that would be "inconsistent with climate change model predictions."

Dr. Pielke even enlists an anthropologist who has studied the modelers (maybe she assumes climate modelers’ thought processes can’t be too different from the neanderthals’ she’s researched). Ultimately it all boils down to politics:

Not surprisingly, the reason for overstated claims lies in the bitter and contested politics of climate change.

...a prominent climate scientist warned a group of his colleagues at the National Center for Atmospheric Research ... to "Choose carefully your adjectives to describe the models. Confidence or lack of confidence in the models is the deciding factor in whether or not there will be policy response on behalf of climate change."

Exaggerate, mislead, fib, lie, whatever - just so long as we get the right policy response. Climate modelers are definitely ‘political’ scientists.

The light bulb ban - some important facts

The Canadian government plans to ban the incandescent light bulb in 2012. The compact fluorescent bulb (CFL) is being promoted as a replacement. This is, of course, part of the lunatic politics of global warming.

A similar ban is being imposed in the U.S.A. where the use of CFLs is also being legislated. Representative Ted Poe of Texas isn't happy and wants the American people to be aware of

Some important facts about compact fluorescent bulbs


[H/t: Vinney Di]

Politically correct cowardice and treachery

I always enjoy reading Major (retired) Nigel Smythe-Brown’s weekly columns in which he uses a hilarious anecdote to frame a more serious point. This week’s column involves his "current wife of 40 years", her two cats and the maid in getting to the ‘point’:

... the politically correct come with many preconceived points of view that cannot be changed even in the face of the facts.

On the BC government’s vandalism of historical art in the legislature:

I was appalled along with many others by the cringing politicians weak-kneed cover up of the those masterful tableaux down at the provincial legislature. To dismiss historically and culturally beautiful paintings because at this particular time they are not as correct as at others is cowardice and treachery to those who went before us.

We have been passed the torch of history to keep it bright and strong, not to douse it at the first sign of censure. If the pictures had not been painted on the walls themselves they would have been destroyed.

On the Indian residential schools:

It is the same with the Indian schools where it is alleged and now taken as fact that every teacher was a monster and that the sole purpose of the schools was to make every child miserable and afraid of assault. We now form five-year committees where the judgment is in before they start as if we were South Africa making up for apartheid.

Just as I was almost hung for what the cat Pericles got up to, many others will be made to hang their heads over an artificial shame that was history and consisted of many people trying to do the best they could with what they knew at the time.

I am reminded of my fifth form Latin master at boarding school - now there was a monster. I shall sit quietly at the club for the foreseeable future and sadly contemplate those people who are always right.

I couldn’t agree more.

“Hate” hustlers

Blazing Cat Fur does a great job of taking on Bernie Farber’s and Haroon Siddiqui’s defence of the "Human Rights" Act Section 13 and Mark Mercer adds some excellent discussion in the comments. Prof. Mercer covered a lot more, but I’ll focus on just these five points:

The task is to get s. 13 (1) deleted, not merely revised.

Just about everyone accepts that s. 13 is too wide and vague...

... the job of the censor is to censor; if one's on the payroll, he'll find a way to do his job.

... terms like "hate" and "contempt" are inevitably elastic.

... the actual haters among us are few and far between...

On the third point re. "the job of the censor" it’s worth emphasizing that the censors have not only expanded their ‘mandate’ into policing "hate" speech (as ‘elastically’ defined by themselves or by complainants) they are actually hustling for more business. The official censors are actively trying to create the impression that there’s a seething caldron of hatred out there - and the Bernie Farbers and Haroon Siddiquis are only too happy to help them. This disturbing trend is evidenced in: the CHRC’s involvement in posting racist comments on ‘target’ web sites; OHRC’s Barbara Hall’s assertion that the rate of complaints is too low, that she’d like to see more, and; Ezra Levant’s recent posting about the AHRC’s despicable race hustling propaganda brochure being circulated to new immigrants.

So, while Prof. Mercer’s observation that "the actual haters among us are few and far between" is true, the sooner the HRCs are forced out of this rotten racket altogether (ie. "get s. 13 deleted, not merely revised") the better.

Alberta HRC race hustling and fear mongering

Just when I begin to think the "human rights" idiocy couldn’t possibly get any worse, Ezra Levant posts a story about the Alberta HRC’s race hustling propaganda brochure which is aimed at drumming up more business for its sick grievance racket:

It's disgusting to begin with, but the fact that it is deliberately targetting new immigrants is downright vile.

The Alberta human rights commission -- in other words, the Government of Alberta -- is trying to persuade newcomers to Alberta to support their grievance industry, and become little race hustlers, little Al Sharptons ...

Ezra carefully dissects the brochure’s phony grievance ‘examples’ and concludes with a couple of good questions:

Do you like how Albertans are being described to newcomers -- as a bunch of stupid bigots? And do you like the instructions given to 60,000 of those newcomers, in the guise of "learning to read English" -- a propanganda tract telling them to sue their neighbours?

The more I learn about these HR morons, the more I hate their guts!

Canuck free speech rules: Shut the f**k up! Or else!

Mark Milke reviews the state of free speech in Canada:

... bizarre reality about Canada's new national sport -- open season on free expression —

Under "human rights" law:

... the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission recently ordered Red Deer's Rev. Stephen Boissoin to forever cease saying anything "disparaging" about gay folk.

... in British Columbia, the local Star Chamber is "investigating" whether Mark Steyn's book, America Alone, constitutes hate speech against Muslims.

If you're a Muslim in Alberta, think homosexuality is a sin and say so publicly in a mosque, you could face Boissoin's fate.

Or suppose Alberta complainant Darren Lund (who got Boissoin into trouble) steps into B.C. and says something untoward about Muslims and their attitudes on homosexuality. Then Islamic complainants in Alberta might file a complaint in B.C. and have Lund found guilty of hate speech there.

See how much fun restrictions on expression can be once the whack-a-thought police get going? It's an endless merry-go-round.

All this inspires an adaptation of a folk diddy from the ‘50s:

The whole world is festering with unhappy news.
The black hate the white, the left hates the right and Muslims hate Jews.
South Africans hate the Dutch and I don't like anybody very much!

Sing to the tune of "The Merry Minuet" (thanks and apologies to The Kingston Trio)


Then, of course, there’s political speech:

Three provincial legislatures have either passed or plan to pass bills to restrict political speech. The first was in British Columbia.

Manitoba's NDP government will soon tighten existing legislation.

Meanwhile, Alberta's government has signalled it, too, will restrict "third parties" during elections.

So where are the courts in all of this folly? ... a 2004 Supreme Court of Canada .... majority opinion meant that gag laws found constitutional protection.

It's enough to make a grown man cry!

[Thanks to Blazing Cat Fur]

Truth, reconciliation and sanctimonious nonsense

There is a wide variety of opinions on the aboriginal residential school program. Some are more generous than others. Talk-radio host John Moore says it was pure evil:

A good number of opinion leaders have done Canadians a disservice in pretending that residential schools were a well-intentioned idea gone wrong.

This is a lie plain and simple. Residential schools were a wicked idea gone wrong. They were not a beneficent attempt to bring Western education to natives but part of an orchestrated program to erase native identity and languages. It was bloodless ethnic cleansing.

While it is true that forcing children away from parents and into distant schools was an arrogant and harsh policy (by today’s standards), he has no grounds whatever for his assertion that the decision makers were "wicked". Wickedness or evil involves conduct in deliberate defiance of prevailing laws and social norms. And, as historian Andrew Roberts observed "Ever since the mid-1830's, the English-speaking peoples had considered it their civilising mission to apply - with varying degrees of force - their values and institutions to those areas of the world they believed would benefit from them." There’s little doubt that the residential schools were well-intentioned.

John Moore’s position is an extreme one. It’s typical of the guilt-ridden, self-loathing, postmodern ‘liberal’ left that believes Western civilization, the one that resulted in their own ultra-fortunate circumstances, was built on greed and exploitation and has no redeeming qualities whatever - and anyone who begs to differ is a liar "plain and simple". Also, he’s claiming a moral superiority over his ancestors - that he would have made wiser, less "wicked" decisions - which is sanctimonious nonsense.

From one Muslim to another - some friendly advice

In response to an article by Tarek Fatah who was highly critical of Islamist "human rights" complainer Mohammed Elmasry and his Osgoode "Sock Puppets", two of the Puppets wrote a rebuttal.

The Sock Puppets’ rebuttal drew some very heavy criticism and also lively debate including this friendly reply from Fatah to a Muslim adversary, Daoud [my emphasis]:

by TarekFatah
Jun 13 2008, 7:29 PM

Daoud wrote: "Tarek I like you too, and often think you have valuable things
to say, but making it into print is not worth insulting each other. There's a
reason the Quran commands us to use beautiful arguments and to avoid
back-biting."

Salaam Daoud,

Thank you for the advice, but I suggest it is misdirected.

The Quran is explicit in asking us to "speak the truth, even if it hurts you and your family."

The damage these guys have done to Muslim reputations and the image of Islam in Canada is collosal.

No one in Canada has problems with Islam; but I can assure you most Canadians, muslim and non-muslim want to rid our country of the Islamofacist theology imported from Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Pakistan.

Behind the mask of 'muslim solidarity' lies the doctrine of hating the non-Muslim and you and I both aware of as Muslims. As a brother I urge you to spend some time living in Saudi Arabia and then come back and share with us how it is to live under apartheid laws of sharia, where even office toilets are segregated between Arab and non-Arab; Muslim and non-Muslim. Where darker skinned Indo-Pakistani and African Muslims are referred to as 'Rafiqs' (Pakis) and 'Abdis' (N*****s) in public, and without guilt or shame.

This is what it seems Elmasry and his gang stand for and wish to impose, if not in Canada, at least inside the Muslim communities of Canada.

Using the Quran as a shield and to shower one's opponents with the label of apostacy, is a tried and tested method in the Middle East to silence poltical opponents or to scare them into submission.

These shameful tactics have now been introduced into Canada by Elmasry, when he said something to the effect that I was the number enemy of Islam.

It will not work. I have stood up to worst pretenders of piety. And the threats of law suits being cooked up against me will not scare me. Remember, I didn't go to Osgoode Hall, but I did spend time as a poltical prisioner in Pakistan, and have seen Saudi sponsiored hate first hand. So tell this boy-band to back off.

Perhaps you should write to the good prof form Egypt and suggest he stick to engineering. He has been president of the CIC longer than any of the Caliphs of early Islam. Tell him, its time to go.

Great stuff! Great advice!
[via Blazing Cat Fur]

Update: Another very interesting comment from Tarek Fatah in the above thread:

by Tarek_Fatah
Jun 14 2008, 1:27 AM

[...]

If the depth of Islamist infiltration into Canada's public and private institutions suprises you, then try this:

The officers in Toronto Police who are sent to investigate death threats against secular or liberal Muslims, sound and appear to be themselves supporters of the Islamist cause. This is for the record, and I am saying this without hiding behind any aristotlean identity. Recenty, when a Muslim UofT student heard of a death threat against me and another writer, and wanted to alert the cops, she was visited by two Muslim police officers who told her not to talk about the issue and keep it "within the community".

At an RCMP-CSIS community meeting, I was shocked to see a phalanx of Toronto imams and Islamists, including relatives and lawyers of the Toronto-18 at the able, only to find out later, they are part of an RCMP inner circle of advisers.

The circus like proceedings of this meeting were reported in the National Post for all to read...

The meaning of free speech

Today’s ‘Post’ editorial "An insult to free speech" comes down very hard on Mohammedan activist and ‘Sock Puppet’ Khurrum Awan's efforts to have our ludicrous "Human Rights" Commissions punish Maclean’s magazine and Mark Steyn for their alleged "Islamophobia". His sorry behaviour is very well summed up with this line:

If someone were actively seeking to stir up the worst stereotypes Canadians hold in regard to the repressive political cultures being imported into Canada by Arab and Muslim immigrants, it’s hard to imagine anyone doing a better job than Khurrum Awan.

Contrast Awan's completely warped understanding of the freedom of speech with gay rights lobby group EGALE's sensible view of the Alberta "Human Rights" Commission's persecution of Christian pastor Boissoin. As Ezra Levant observed:

If only the "leaders" of the official Jewish establishment in Canada had such common sense. They would have governments -- by far history's biggest butchers of Jews -- "protect" us from hostile ideas, rather than doing it ourselves.

Truth and Reconciliation - Part II

Tomorrow the Conservative government will issue another apology; this time to the aboriginal peoples of Canada for the all the ‘sins of our fathers’. I hope it helps. But I also hope the government doesn’t imagine that its ‘apology’ is on my behalf or for that matter on behalf of my parents or their parents because none of us, as far as I know, were involved in committing the alleged sins. One, anyone, including current government officials, can only apologize for their own actions. 'Apologies' for others’ decisions and actions at another time in history - no matter what the outcome - are meaningless.

‘We’ (and that means everyone, including new immigrants from Pakistan) can only acknowledge that what was done, by others, at an earlier time, no matter how well intentioned, may have harmed people and, with the benefit of that hindsight and advanced knowledge, ‘we’ could say ‘we’ wouldn’t do the same things today. Of course that wouldn’t stop Phil Fontaine from decrying a host of on-going sins against aboriginals and, of course, demanding more money.

Here’s an interesting article by Richard Wagamese, an Ojibway from northwestern Ontario, about his elderly mother’s positive experiences in residential schools. There are also some interesting reactions in the comments - many effectively suggesting his mother was a victim of Stockholm Syndrome. "Truth" and "Reconciliation" will be difficult to find.

BC HRkT - will Maclean’s/Steyn be convicted?

It’s been fascinating to watch events unfold at the BC "Human Rights" kangaroo Tribunal in Vancouver this week. The blog coverage has been great: Ezra Levant, Andrew Coyne, Jay Currie, Blazing Cat Fur, Mark Steyn, Five Feet of Fury, and a multitude of others round the world have weighed in.

Now that the joke trial is over the big question is - Will the Tribunal convict? Opinions vary:

Steyn hopes and thinks they will.
Ezra thinks maybe.
Blazing Cat Fur says "no".

Somebody ought to be taking bets. My own bet would be "no", and for reasons similar to BCF’s.

Even though the Tribunal panel of tyrants likely believes Maclean’s is guilty and should be fined and censored, they’ll not want to risk jeopardizing their little "human rights" scam when Maclean’s appeals its conviction to the Supreme Court of Canada or when parliament finally starts hacking away at the HRCs’ ‘mandate’.

If the BC Tribunal decides not to convict they, and their supporters, will be able to proclaim that "the process works" and then go on hearing, even encouraging, complaints from the likes of Mohammed Elmasry and his CIC. Since the process is, largely, the punishment - with defendants being dragged before kangaroo courts for "hate" crimes and having to spend small fortunes on lawyers - the chill on free speech can be accomplished without the need to convict anyone.

At least that’s what I’d do if I were a morally and ethically challenged "Human Rights" bureaucrat who was paying close attention to which way the wind was blowing.

Another stupid poll

Another typical media poll - three dopey choices reflecting the pollster's lack of imagination and bias along with one catch-all.

Note to the Globe and Mail: the last thing the western provinces need is another government "big-ticket project". So, piss off!

Hey, John Baird! Listen to Peter Foster

Today Environment Minister, John Baird has his say in the debate on how best to cut greenhouse gas emissions:

Those of us contributing to this National Post debate may not agree on how we should cut emissions, but I am sure that we all agree that action must be taken to confront the challenge of climate change.

"... we [true believers] all agree that action must be taken." That’s a given. It imparts about as much information as saying "water is wet". But my advice to Minister Baird would be - listen to Peter Foster in his column today, "An arm and a leg".

On politicians and their advisors:

Let's say that a bunch of tribal chiefs, having realized that they are in danger of being exposed as useless parasites, consult with their witch doctors and announce that the Gods are angry. These vengeful Gods are demanding that every tribesman (except chiefs and witch doctors)must have either an arm or a leg amputated.

On the choices and ‘benefits’:

Being eager to be seen as good chiefs, they agree to consult with the tribesmen. Not about the anger of the Gods, of course. That's settled. Instead ... Should individuals be allowed to choose which limb to lose? ... Below the knee? Above the elbow? ... a marvellous opportunity to stimulate economic growth via the development of a prosthetic limb industry.

On the "deniers":

...."Hang on, what proof do we have the Gods are angry? And where are these Gods anyway?".... if they couldn't rip his heart out straight away .... "Infidel," they would scream.....How dare he doubt the shamans, among whom there is consensus.

After outlining the deceit, folly and destructiveness of carbon taxes and cap-and-trade ruses Foster concludes on a hopeful note:

We are indeed facing a tsunami of needless policy destruction. Fortunately, people are finally beginning to appreciate what this charade will cost them: an arm and a leg.

It would be nice if that were true, but tribal chief Baird is still pushing CO2 as a pollutant and measures that will still cost us an arm or a leg. Maybe it would be worth while to drop him a note.

How dare you diss Steyn!

Andrew Coyne reported another interesting day in BC’s "Human Rights" kangaroo court today and recommended The Vancouver Sun’s Ian Mulgrew as a "trenchant read".

Mr. Mulgrew makes some decent points regarding the infamy the BC Tribunal is bringing on itself:

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal is murdering its own reputation ...

It is institutional hara-kiri, in my opinion.

The issue seems outside of the tribunal's jurisdiction and the agency already is being ridiculed locally and internationally for attempting to stifle free speech.

No matter how it rules in this case, the tribunal looks like a kangaroo court as a result...

Good! - the sooner it’s put down the better.

But I beg to differ with him on his characterization of Steyn and America Alone:

Like much of the right-wing wit's work, it was fiery, sarcastic, nasty and at times rude.

And most of it should have been taken by readers for what it was -- one man's not very enlightened and not very nice opinion.

Up yours Mulgrew! Steyn’s work is fiery, witty and accurate. And if he shows contempt for Islamists and their ‘moderate’ enablers here and abroad it’s contempt they’ve earned, in spades. Don’t shoot the messenger - God knows there’s been precious few of them.

Also, Steyn is equally if not more critical of Western culture for it’s postmodern, self-despising weakness and multiculti stupidity. Canada’s ridiculous "Human Rights" kangaroo court system is a prime symptom of this.

God save us from over-educated morons

A front page story in yesterday’s ‘Post’ covered the musings of Professor William Gorton in a paper entitled "Too Much of a Good Thing: Freedom, Individualism, Autonomy and the Decline of Happiness in Liberal Democracies" to be presented at this week’s Vancouver annual Congress of the Humanities. Among Gorton’s musings:

"There's the assumption that human beings make the best choices for how to lead a happy life,"

... while Western countries continue to get healthier and wealthier, happiness levels are stagnating.

"An abundance of choice may actually make people unhappy," choice, he said, comes weighted with responsibility and the potential for regret.

"political participation doesn't have this effect of making people feel they have more control over their lives --it makes people angry."

What to do, what to do?

...he does suggest one possible approach to the dilemma -- something he calls "soft paternalism."

"Soft paternalism says individuals still have choices, but we're going to try to tip the balance, in subtle ways, towards the decision that's more likely to make the person better off," he said.

I wonder who "we" is. Thankfully, Peter Foster has a much saner idea: "If you’re the sort of person who worries about too much choice in the cereal aisle, as professor Gorton apparently is, do something that I do: eat oatmeal."
Some more snippets:

When capitalism wound up making people happier and richer, the egghead
busybodies either ignored the evidence or shifted the goalposts, e.g. capitalism might not bring misery after all, but what was it all for? Were we truly happy?

Professor Gorton has come to the conclusion, no doubt after surveying the academic "literature," (garbage in/ garbage out) that Western capitalist liberal democracy might not be making us happy.

I thought for sure that Mr. Gorton must be some kind of re-tread sixties hippy, but I Googled him and he’s just a young buck, barely out of his post-doctoral diapers.

The fact that he is recycling the same kind of anti-materialist crap that has been peddled for at least a couple of hundred years confirms the depressing fact that Academe is ever being re-populated with bright young people who have elaborate educations and little or no wisdom ...

... but the urge to run others’ lives just won’t go away. After all, they are just so much brighter than the average Joe.

Even more depressing, I discovered that Professor Gorton is meant to be some kind of expert on Karl Popper, a philosopher primarily concerned with saving us from the likes of Professor Gorton.

... what people treasure above all is the joy of screwing up for themselves. If you want to see really unhappy people, look at those whose lives are screwed up for them.

With all due respect to Professor Gorton, I would suggest that while he may derive happiness from formulating plans for the rest of mankind, his ideas should stay on campus.

Amen. Perhaps the real problem is that too many people like Professor Gorton are paid too much money to dream up idiotic theories and speculate about a world, the real world, which they don’t inhabit. Our universities, at least the humanities faculties, will be the death of us. And it’s a little ironic that the Professor gets to spew his "soft paternalism" junk during the same week that a weird BC "Human Rights" Tribunal considers censoring free speech and the free press.

CBC kovers kangaroo kourt

One of Kathy Shaidle's readers encountered a couple of crack CBC "journalists" covering the trial:

Who is this Steyn guy they asked. Is he a journalist?

Did they know who Elmasery was? No.

They asked if I had a picture of Steyn.

They knew nothing about the AHRC case against Ezra.

They did know about the Western Standard but were unaware that it was no longer being published.

I tried to provide some background on each of these cases but could see that there was not a lot of interest.

Read the whole thing, but, warning, it'll make you sick.

Kangaroo Kourt in session

The Macleans/Steyn "hate" crime is now before a British Columbia "Human Rights" Tribunal. Andrew Coyne is live blogging for Macleans.

There is lots of commentary on the proceedings.

Coyne on the basics:

...from the complainant’s lawyer:

10:00 AM Faisal Joseph opening now…

10:03 AM "A national media organization that consistently and persistently denigrated Canadians of Muslim origin … while refusing to offer any meaningful reply…"

10:05 AM Section7.1 of the BC Human Rights Code is the relevant legal text, prohibiting exposure to hate.

Free speech, in Joseph’s humble submission, is a "red herring."

10:21 AM He’s quoting various intemperate blog posts—written by people with no connection to Steyn or Maclean’s—to make the point that Steyn’s article encouraged others to view Muslims with hatred.

10:23 AM So he wants the tribunal to order Rogers to publish … something, in the name of "balancing" free speech against the right to be free of discrimination.

...from Maclean’s defence:

11:02 AM Roger McConchie now up for Maclean’s…

Fundamental position: these proceedings, from beginning to end, are an infringement of the constitutional right to free press, and the relevant section of BC code should be struck down.

On the narrow substantive issue, we appear for the limited purpose of rebutting the complainant’s claims.

11:04 AM Under Section 7.1, he continues, innocent intent is not a defence, nor is truth, nor is fair comment or the public interest, nor is good faith or responsible journalism.

Or in other words, there is no defence.

11:08 AM Maclean’s does not recognize the right of governments at any level to monitor the contents of magazines. We will call no witnesses, but will simply ask that the complaint be set aside…

We will, however, get into whether the article in question conforms to the definition laid out in the Taylor case, a Supreme Court decision upholding a similar section of the federal law on the grounds that it would only apply to really "extreme" examples of hatred…

11:19 AM McConchie goes on: whether or not we agreed to publish the "response" sought is irrelevant. It wasn’t in their original complaint, and it’s not grounds for claiming "discrimination" under Section 7.1.

And he’s done.

11:38 AM It’s kind of a cool defence, when you think of it. The law does not permit us to defend ourselves on the basis of responsible journalism (or anything else, really). But that’s patently unreasonable, so the complainants are actually trying to sneak it back in—to make the issue our journalistic practices, rather than their attempt to silence us. We’re not giving them that opportunity.

Only in the demented Dominion.