Mark Steyn rightly calls Canada a "superwimp pussy -nation", while singing the praises of the Canadian troops:
And that, Mr. Binn, is why Canadian soldiers don't get the credit they deserve. Not because they're nancy boys but because the Canadian state is deeply invested in the idea of Canada as the nancy-boy nation. That's why in April 2002 the politicians, media and large swathes of the public preferred their Princess Pats as victims rather than as killers. Look at the words of almost every prominent "official" Canadian--Chr‚tien, Martin, Axworthy, Ralston Saul--in the first four-and-a-half years after 9/11. The underlying message is: this isn't our fight. Canada, in the peerless formulation of the great Christie Blatchford, mistook the sidelines for the moral high ground, and, in a great civilizational struggle being waged in a media age, it's not enough to have great fighting men when every other force in your society is communicating 24/7 that you're the superwimp pussy-nation.
-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/23/2006 01:49:00 p.m. TITLE: State sponsored speech - biased at the BBC ----- BODY:
Indeed there is a bias at the BBC as this leaked report indicates, ( I assume it is this report) . An excerpt:

The full account of the meeting shows how senior BBC figures queued up to lambast their employer.

Political pundit Andrew Marr said: 'The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.'

Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to 'correct', it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'.

Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a 'very senior news executive', about the BBC's pro-multicultural stance but was given the reply: 'The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it.'

Randall also told how he once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work but was rebuked with: 'You can't do that, that's like the National Front!'

Quoting a George Orwell observation, Randall said that the BBC was full of intellectuals who 'would rather steal from a poor box than stand to attention during God Save The King'.

-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/23/2006 12:47:00 p.m. TITLE: Time to free up speech - at Chapters/Indigo ----- BODY:
Chapters not carrying Mark Steyn's new book. Decisions like this really help the bottom line.


We have had hundreds of complaints today from would-be customers unable to find copies of the book in Chapters, Indigo, Coles, SmithBooks or any of the other aliases of Canada's multi-appellated monopoly bookstore chain. It's not our fault and I'm afraid there's nothing we or the publishers can do about it. Heather Reisman doesn't want to sell it and that's that. And that's what happens in as coercively regulated a cultural environment as the decayed Dominion's. Try Amazon Canada, where it's been Number Two on the bestsellers all weekend, even though, as one Calgary Chapters clerk told a thwarted customer, nobody wants it. If you're weary of listening to excuses from Canada's monopoly retailer as to why they didn't order a book that hit the Top Ten 24 hours after publication, try the SteynOnline store's premium fast-track UPS shipping option for Canadian customers who'd like the book within a few days.

-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/23/2006 11:59:00 a.m. TITLE: Update on the gun registry trial ----- BODY:
I said I would update on how the trail of the gun charges turned out. Here it is.

9 months and 7 court appearances after the charges were laid, (including a judicial pre-trail) the trial for possession of a firearm without a licence, unsafe storage of a firearm and possession of an unregistered firearm is finally going to proceed. I have come to realize that the defence I have concocted is quite solid and that the crown will not be able to prove their case. It is a technical defence but fatal to the charges.

We arrive in court only to find out that there is a sexual assault trial ahead of us and the possibility of getting reached is next to nil. We wait. Six hours later another court opens up. The new Crown looks at the file and turns to ask why this is at trial. The reply: "Your office would not take the deal that was offered". He again looks at the file and offers: forfeit the gun and the charges will be withdrawn. My guy had already signed a quit claim to the property prior to my involvement so it was an easy deal to take.

It is over and my guy wasted thousands of dollars and plenty of time.

I am not going to get into the details of the defence as I will use it in the future.
-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/22/2006 10:58:00 p.m. TITLE: Rex Murphy calls out Bono ----- BODY:
Rex Murphy is on to Bono. Slowly but surely everyone is coming over to my side.

The gang at The London Fog are also on this and are all members of the Bono Fan Club.
-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/22/2006 10:56:00 p.m. TITLE: Global Warming Skepticism ----- BODY:
David Janes is on to skepticism about global warming ... here & here.
-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/22/2006 10:44:00 p.m. TITLE: ----- BODY:
Is it just me or does this story seem to drop in every couple of years? (via Bourque)
-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/18/2006 11:37:00 a.m. TITLE: Islamic Imperialism ----- BODY:
Victor David Hanson is writing on historical islamic imperialism. It is well worth the read. Here is an excerpt:

But unlike the West, where Christianity began as the persecuted victim of the Roman Empire and conceived of its own empire as a spiritual one apart from the political realm, Islam “was inextricably lined with the creation of a world empire and its universalism was inherently imperialist. It did not distinguish between temporal and religious powers.” Muhammad could thus “cloak his political
ambitions with a religious aura,” a rationalization of domination that drives the contemporary jihadists like Osama bin-Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini, who just like centuries of warriors before them justify their aggression by quoting Muhammad’s farewell address, in which the Prophet laid down the injunction “to fight all men until they say ‘There is no god but Allah.’”
-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/18/2006 09:55:00 a.m. TITLE: policy slavishly driving election ----- BODY:
It's good to see policy driving an election race somewhere. (via Instapundit)
-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/17/2006 07:01:00 a.m. TITLE: Time to free up speech - in the press ----- BODY:
The BBC is in court to block the release of an internal report that is thought to be quite critical of the BBC's Middle East coverage:
The BBC has spent thousands of pounds of licence payers' money trying to block the release of a report which is believed to be highly critical of its Middle East coverage.

The corporation is mounting a landmark High Court action to prevent the release of The Balen Report under the Freedom of Information Act, despite the fact that BBC reporters often use the Act to pursue their journalism.

The action will increase suspicions that the report, which is believed
to run to 20,000 words, includes evidence of anti-Israeli bias in news programming.

Read the article. I am sure there will be plenty of commentary on the same. I simply point out that the BBC is government funded and that freedom of the press is an included part of the freedom of expression. I would love to see a similar report on the CBC.
-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/17/2006 06:36:00 a.m. TITLE: A must read for those who trust the state ----- BODY:
My loyal reader will know that I am no fan of the police, the state, etc. That I believe in the rule of law and individual rights. If you are one of those who believe, as the current Harper Government does, that the police are benevolent or that Crown Prosecutors are not in it for themselves, take a look at the Duke lacrosse case (via Instapundit)This is a US example but I have posted on similar examples.

Note in this excellent analysis the reaction of the Duke University faculty and administration. It is appalling at best. For you Arts students out there, the lesson is: do not believe any of your professors' social commentary. Communism, racialism, multiculturalism, and just about every other "ism" work only in the make believe worlds of the academic, the trade unionist and the civil servant. In the real world you get only artificial results enforced by a gun. When the government is involved or has control, the first decision will always be political.
-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/15/2006 09:59:00 p.m. TITLE: Gun Registry Charges Proceeding? ----- BODY:
I am in court this week defending a 55 year old gentleman, with no criminal record, on the charges of:

  1. Illegal possession of a firearm (section 91(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada);
  2. Illegal Storage of a firearm (section 86(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada; and
  3. Possession of an unregistered firearm (section 112(1) of the Firearms Act of Canada.

The facts are simple. Wife leaves husband after 30 years of marriage. Husband goes on a drinking binge. Wife does not hear from husband and he does not show up to work for a few days. Wife gets worried that he may have hurt himself. Wife calls the cops and says that there is a long-gun in the house. Gun is in a closet without a trigger lock. The gun has not been used nor thought of for 30+ years. Husband is charged with the above crimes. There is also an application brought under section 117.05 of the Firearms Act for forfeiture of he gun to the police to be destroyed. Husband and wife reconcile.

The disclosure from the Crown included a screening form stating that the Crown would be seeking a jail term for this clearly victimless crime if my guy proceeds to trial. Did I mention that he is a 55 year old man without a criminal record? Did I mention that he has never been charged with a crime? Did I mention that he is never going to jail? He does, however, face the problem of having a criminal record. The Crown will not deal though I still can't figure out who got hurt in all this.

I will let you know how it turns out. I have concocted a defence that may work. We will see. The problem for my guy is the insistence by the Crown that any deal involves my guy getting a criminal record. What nonsense.

As for the Registry charges, the Crown is proceeding but it will be interesting to see how a judge will deal with these charges in light of the plans of the Consrvative government to scrap the registry.

UPDATE: The charges were withdrawn at the beginning of the trial.
-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/15/2006 08:39:00 p.m. TITLE: Time to free up speech - I mean repress speech - In Canada ----- BODY:
I read this in the print version and intended to post on it. Then I see Tim Blair in Australia has beaten me to the punch. The circular logic of this letter is the stuff of the dark ages:

The fact that someone could call the Koran a "book of inherent
violence" tells us how ignorant and uninformed that person is about our religion. Secondly, what I found interesting was Prof. Redeker's comment, "We must distinguish between Islamists and those responsible Muslims out there who should without a doubt support me." I find it hard to understand what he is looking for. Does he want moderate Muslims to support him when he is insulting the basis of our religion without putting in the time and effort to understand it completely? Even though he will not face a violent backlash from moderate Muslims, Prof. Redeker will not gain any kind of support or encouragement either.

Muslim "reactions" and "retaliations" against supposed "free speech" are not coming out of thin air. In fact, authors such as Prof. Redeker are adding fuel to the fire and expecting it to extinguish itself. There is a simple solution to these "violent" retaliations. Let's keep practising free speech, but eliminate the ignorant insulting of Muslim beliefs. The retaliations will stop. It is pretty hard to clap with just one hand.

Hamid Rizvi, Toronto.

What the???? We are vicious and violent only when you point out that we are vicious and viloent? It really isn't ours to wonder why.
-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/15/2006 08:15:00 p.m. TITLE: Time to Free up Speech -Scientific speech ----- BODY:
(from Instapundit)
Freedom of speech concerns the use of force by the state to restrict speech or the refusal of the state to use force to prevent the use of private violence to restrict speech. This excerpt from Brendan O'Neill's column concerning free speech on climate change is not so much about state action as the call for such action by the state:

The message is clear: climate change deniers are scum. Their words are so wicked and dangerous that they must be silenced, or criminalised, or forced beyond the pale alongside those other crackpots who claim there was no Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Perhaps climate change deniers should even be killed off, hanged like those evil men who were tried Nuremberg-style the first time around.

Whatever the truth about our warming planet, it is clear there is a
tidal wave of intolerance in the debate about climate change which is eroding free speech and melting rational debate. There has been no decree from on high or piece of legislation outlawing climate change denial, and indeed there is no need to criminalise it, as the Australian columnist suggests. Because in recent months it has been turned into a taboo, chased out of polite society by a wink and a nod, letters of complaint, newspaper articles continually comparing
climate change denial to Holocaust denial. An attitude of ‘You can’t say that!’ now surrounds debates about climate change, which in many ways is more powerful and pernicious than an outright ban. I am not a scientist or an expert on climate change, but I know what I don’t like - and this demonisation of certain words and ideas is an affront to freedom of speech and open, rational debate.

-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/13/2006 11:03:00 a.m. TITLE: South Park, 9/11 & Quiz for "Liberals" ----- BODY:
Over at Political Pit Bull, the latest South Park is YouTubed (via Damination). Read this comment and quiz that follows the video:

The Brown Hornet said,
13, 2006 04:16 AM

These must be extremely tough times for a liberal to live in. The root of all leftist belief in kRaZy 9-11 theories, is that no matter how off the wall these theories are, no matter how disgusting, no matter how idiotic, all of them are much more believable than 19 radical islamic
fundementalist hijacking the planes.

Radical Islamic Fundementalist are never to blame for anything, because they never make mistakes, and never have to appologise for anything (according to the modern liberal)And if a liberal
does get caught in a trap where they would have to be intellectually honest and admit it, they then side-step and put the catagory of Radical Islam under the rather large banner of "all religion" (i.e. all religion is dangerous etc,.)

Watch a liberals head explode if they have to answer any of these

-1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by:

a. Superman

b. Jay Leno

c. Harry Potter

d. Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:

a. Olga Corbett

b. Sitting Bull

c. Arnold Schwarzenegger

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

2. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:

a. Lost Norwegians

b. Elvis

c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

3. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:

a. John Dillinger

b.The King of Sweden

c. The Boy Scouts

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

4. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:

a. A pizza delivery boy

b. Pee Wee Herman

c. Geraldo Rivera

d. Muslim maleextremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and 70 year old Leon Klinghoffer, an American passenger confined to a wheelchair, was murdered and thrown overboard by:

a. The Smurfs

b. Davy Jones

c. The Little Mermaid

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and Robert Stidham, a US Navy diver was murdered by:

a. Captain Kidd

b. Charles Lindberg

c. Mother Teresa

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

7. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:

a. Scooby Doo

b. The Tooth Fairy

c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:

a. Richard Simmons

b. Grandma Moses

c. Michael Jordan

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

9. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:

a. Mr. Rogers

b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill' s women problems

c. The World Wrestling Federation

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

10. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:

a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer

b. The Supreme Court of Florida

c. Mr. Bean

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

11. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:

a. Enron

b. The Lutheran Church

c. The NFL

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

12. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:

a. Bonnie and Clyde

b. Captain Kangaroo

c. Billy Graham

d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/13/2006 06:07:00 a.m. TITLE: 3 Strikes and you're out is bad law ----- BODY:
Details of the Canadian government's 3 strikes and you're out legislation have been released and at first glance it appears that the shifting onus and the indeterminate sentencing will make it difficult for these provisions to pass a Charter challenge. CBC reports:

The Tory government will introduce new legislation next week that would make it easier to designate criminals found guilty of a third sexual or violent crime as dangerous offenders, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Thursday.

The bill would put the onus on a person found guilty of a third
violent crime to convince a judge not to designate them a dangerous

As it stands now, the Crown must show at a hearing why the
individual should be declared a dangerous offender. Under the proposed legislation, the person would automatically be considered a dangerous offender and would have to prove the designation should not apply.

Harper said if the person cannot prove this, he or she will be put in prison for an indeterminate period of time and won't be eligible for parole for seven years.

The prime minister said he was convinced that the proposed law would respect the Charter and strikes the necessary balance between protecting individual rights and protecting society as a whole.

As part of the same criminal justice package, the government wants the maximum length of a peace bond doubled from 12 months to 24.

-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/13/2006 05:36:00 a.m. TITLE: Bridge Collapses due to corruption ----- BODY:
Let's see if the Quebec Government has the guts to follow this old story of corruption, known on the street in Quebec for 40 years, to its dirty, rotten conclusion.
The devastating overpass collapse in Laval, Que. That left five people dead happened because steel reinforcing rods were installed incorrectly in the structure, according to reports.

On Thursday Montreal's La Presse quoted unnamed sources who said the inquiry probing the collapse has concluded parts of the overpass were poorly aligned and corrosion weakened the structure.

Transport Minister Michel Despres has refused to comment on the report.

Hellen Christodoulou, a bridge engineer, told CTV Montreal the conclusions fit with a visual inspection she made of the de la Concorde overpass after it collapsed on Sept. 30, killing five people.

"It was evident from visually inspecting the bridge that the problem did lie with the reinforcement," Christodoulou said.

"Initial speculation again was that there was corrosion. In fact, what we saw on-site was that the rebars were not corroded, but it was kind of obvious the way the damage had occurred and the concrete had sheared off, given the weakness of the concrete, that the rebars were the problem, and as it is confirmed now, this is the case."

Christodoulou said concrete on its own is a very weak material. It gains its strength from the reinforcement, typically steel bars known as rebar, that run through the concrete.

When the rebar is not placed correctly, the structure can become very precarious, she said.

Rebar placement was not the problem, it was the symptom of the problem. Many a prominent resident, dead and alive, made their fortune on shoddy construction and kickbacks. The unions will certainly be resisting any look back in time.
-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/13/2006 05:20:00 a.m. TITLE: Time to free up speech - In France? (impossible) ----- BODY:
Closing down freedom of speech in France. From the BBC (via Bourque):

Turkey has condemned a French parliamentary vote which would make it a crime to deny that Armenians suffered "genocide" at the hands of the Turks.

Turkey called it a "serious blow" to relations and has threatened
sanctions. The vote was also criticised by the EU.


The French vote came as controversial Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk won the 2006 Nobel Prize in Literature.

He has faced prosecution in Turkey for talking about the murder of hundreds of thousands of Armenians during World War I and thousands of Kurds in subsequent years.

The charges have since been dropped.

This reminds me that it is time for me to do a post calling for the repeal of the Hate Laws in Canada.
-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/13/2006 04:49:00 a.m. TITLE: Negotiating with North Korea is volunteering for extortion ----- BODY:
Why all the talk about negotiating with North Korea, about failed diplomacy and the like. You can't negotiate with someone who is never willing to settle or compromise. Negotiaions with the North without a credible threat to the power of the dictator is simply volunteering for extortion. North Korea will not come to the table unless you pay them, will not stay at the table unless you pay them and will break any "deal" they enter regardless of whether you pay them. Why would they do otherwise? There is no downside for the dictator and the world will blame America.
-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/13/2006 04:35:00 a.m. TITLE: ----- BODY:
Victor David Hanson takes a look at North Korea and China's role. It is well worth the read.
-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/12/2006 01:54:00 p.m. TITLE: Kyoto = Dictator's Utopia ----- BODY:
Norman Spector thinks that Jeff Simpson of the Globe & Mail is onto Kyoto. In some respects Norm & Jeff are correct, but the entire point of Kyoto is alluded to but missed by both. Simpson writes:
Canada could buy emission credits from other countries, but the cost would be billions and billions of dollars. Nothing would have hanged in Canada. A stupider public policy choice would be hard to imagine.

The point of Kyoto and the reason why Canada should not participate and rescind any participation to date is that no modern industrial nation can meet the emission standards at this time. The only realistic route to compliance is to purchase emission credits. The vast majority of the sinatories to the agreement will be vendors rather than purchasers. What is the effect of such a purchase? From whom are we purchasing? These are the questions that count. The United Nations sees all countries as equals regardless of the form or legitimacy of their governments. Countries under strongmen and dictatorships will have credits aplenty to sell. Of course they will use the money for the betterment of their peoples' lot - or not. They will use the money as they use all the money, to line the pockets of themselves, their buddies and those they need to stay in power. In the interim the economies of these countries will not improve at all. The statists & environmentalists will be thrilled! Rather than subsidized production there will be subsidized non-production. Utopia.
-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/10/2006 05:18:00 a.m. TITLE: The Canadian Angle on North Korean Nuclear ----- BODY:
It did not take long for CBC to find out that the Korean-Canadian community is in fear over the North Korean nuclear tests... As Mark Steyn would say, if Jean Chretien were still in power he would be eating a bowl of Dog Soup, while denying that Canada ever had troops in Korea for other than peace-keeping:

Jean Chrétien, after 9/11, went to a mosque; after SARS broke out, he went to a Chinese restaurant. After the tsunami, the prime minister no doubt toyed with going to a luxury resort in Phuket for three weeks, but as it turned out three quarters of the cabinet were already on the beach in their thongs and in no hurry to return.
-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/05/2006 08:57:00 p.m. TITLE: FBI Invade Canada to protect us from RCMP ----- BODY:
Why all the fuss about the FBI operating in Canada? It's not like we can trust the RCMP.

Greg Weston writes of the RCMP in The Sun:
But as we have pointed out on numerous occasions before, this isn't the first time in Zaccardelli's six-year tenure that the venerable Horsemen have been up to their britches in manure. Let's remember, the Mounties were caught red-handed in the sponsorship scandal, the force having illegally funnelled almost $3 million of Adscam money through a secret, non-government bank account.

No one in the force was disciplined -- heck, Chuck Guite, the now-jailed bureaucrat at the centre of Adscam, was once invited to take the honour salute for the Musical Ride -- and Zaccardelli dismissed it all as an administrative error.

No wonder the RCMP were slow to go after their man at the outset
of the sponsorship scandal under Jean Chretien. In fact, the force failed to even investigate the $350-million program for almost two years after an internal government audit showing all kinds of hanky-panky.

If there is one chapter in Zac's tenure that rankles almost as much as Arar, it is surely the collusion of the Mounties in the shameful hounding and intimidation of Francois Beaudoin, the former head of the federal Business Development Bank.

Beaudoin was the honest banker whom Chretien repeatedly tried to
pressure into approving a $650,000 federal loan to the then-PM's pal and Shawinigan innkeeper at the centre of what became known as the "Shawinigate" fiasco.

When Beaudoin refused to approve the loan as a bad risk, and
threatened to blow the whistle on Chretien, the RCMP were called in to help hound the banker out of his job and through years of personal hell.

Two cronies Chretien had appointed to the federal bank appealed directly to Zaccardelli to turn the Mounties loose on Beaudoin for all kinds of unfounded wrongdoing.

Before Beaudoin finally got his day in court, he had been subjected to three years of a smear campaign, aided and abetted by RCMP raids on his family home, cottage and -- as a final act of attempted public humiliation -- his Montreal golf club.

In 2004, Quebec Judge Andre Denis issued a scathing 200-page judgment on the Beaudoin case, awarding the former banker $4.3 million in damages, and describing the actions of the RCMP and Chretien's goon squad as "an unspeakable injustice."

But, hey, the Harper government has "full confidence" in Zaccardelli and the Mounties.

Weston fails to mention the APEC Conference where, at the behest of the PMO, the RCMP arrested potential protestors prior to the protests. No crime. No complaint. not even a bylaw violation. Of course Chretien put an end to the inquiry once the request came for him to testify.

-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/05/2006 12:51:00 p.m. TITLE: Time to free up speech - for Tobacco Companies ----- BODY:
Is anyone else sick of the anti-tobacco lobby and the way they assume we are all a pack of children? The labeling of packages with light and mild was the brainchild of Health Canada, not the ever so evil Big Tobacco.
-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/05/2006 12:11:00 p.m. TITLE: Time to free up speech - at Columbia ----- BODY:
I thought I was looking at footage from Concordia University ... turns it it's a little more Ivy League.

With that said, I was in Montreal last weekend and did see the standard scruffy looking Concordia activists handing out pamphlets and selling books equating Dick Cheney to Satan.
-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/05/2006 06:53:00 a.m. TITLE: Political Correctness and Psychology Kill ----- BODY:
I would assume that in the make believe world of social work, they will be revising their pamphlets after this.
-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/04/2006 12:36:00 p.m. TITLE: The Creeping Darkness II ----- BODY:
YouTube is in the censorship game.

(Via Instapundit)
-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/04/2006 06:17:00 a.m. TITLE: Time to free up speech - in Poland ----- BODY:
Via Bourque

Police hunt farting dissident

Police in Poland have launched a nationwide hunt for a man who farted loudly when asked what he thought of the president.

Hubert Hoffman, 45, was charged with "contempt for the office of the head of state" for his actions after he was stopped by police in a routine check at a Warsaw railway

He complained that under President Lech Kaczynski and his twin brother Jaroslaw, the country was returning to a Communist style dictatorship.

When told to show more respect for the country's rulers, he farted loudly and was promptly arrested.

Hoffmann was arrested and released on bail but failed to turn up at a Warsaw court early this week to be tried, and
the judge in the case rejected an appeal by defence lawyers to throw the charges out.

A court spokesman said: "Such a case of disrespect is taken very seriously."

Instead the court ordered the police to start a nationwide hunt for the man, and interpol have been alerted

-------- AUTHOR: Little Tobacco DATE: 10/02/2006 07:28:00 p.m. TITLE: Time to free up speech in this country ----- BODY:
You do not have to be a serious observer of Canadian politics to figure that a spring election is somewhat likely. Neither the NDP nor The Bloc have any interest in allowing the new Liberal Party Leader get his feet under him and start running. The Tories are in a similar situation but have to play more coy. As such there is little chance that the 2007 budget will be passed and we will find ourselves at the polls.

There is little time then to tackle a few issues that need tackling and we should start with free speech. This writer is calling for the repeal of Part 17 of Canada Elections Act which places spending limits on third parties during elections. The Limit is $150,000 with no more than $3000 in any riding. The alleged purpose of this act was to protect the public, who clearly must be stupid and/or gullible and/ r selfish from being influenced by non registered political parties. In other words, it protects state sanctioned speech. Here are sections 350 -352 of the Act:

350. (1) A third party shall not incur election advertising expenses of a total amount of more than $150,000 during an election period in relation to a general election.

Spending limit electoral district
(2) Not more than $3,000 of the total amount referred to in subsection (1) shall be incurred to promote or oppose the election of one or more candidates in a given electoral district, including by
(a) naming them;
(b) showing their likenesses;
(c) identifying them by their respective political affiliations; or
(d) taking a position on an issue with which they are particularly associated.

Expenses re party leader
(3) The limit set out in subsection (2) only applies to an amount incurred with respect to a leader of a registered party or eligible party to the extent that it is incurred to promote or oppose his or her election in a given electoral district.

Spending limit by-election
(4) A third party shall not incur election advertising expenses of a total amount of more than $3,000 in a given electoral district during the election period of a by-election.

Third party inflation adjustment factor
(5) The amounts referred to in subsections (1), (2) and (4) shall be multiplied by the inflation adjustment factor referred to in section 414 that is in effect on the issue of the writ or writs.

No combination to exceed limit
351. A third party shall not circumvent, or attempt to circumvent, a limit set out in section 350 in any manner, including by splitting itself into two or more third parties for the purpose of circumventing the limit or acting in collusion with another third party so that their combined election advertising expenses exceed the limit.

Advertising must name third party
352. A third party shall identify itself in any election advertising placed by it and indicate that it has authorized the advertising.

One would think that it is indefensible and that the Supreme Court of Canada would never allow this violation of free speech. Think again. Apparently the majority of the Court believed that when harm cannot be defined it is best to err on the side of regulating speech. The majority worked around the obvious and adopted the statist position that equalityt is found at the finish line, not the starting blocks.

The reasoning of the Chief Justice in dissent makes much more sense, though it still is not completely satisfactory. Here is an excerpt:

35 On the other side of the equation, the infringement on the right is severe. We earlier reviewed the stringency of the limits. They prevent citizens from effectively communicating with their fellow citizens on election issues during a campaign. Any communication beyond the local level is effectively rendered impossible, and even at that level is seriously curtailed. The spending limits do not allow citizens to express themselves through mail-outs within certain ridings, radio and television media, nor the national press. Citizens are limited to 1.3 percent of the expenditures of registered political parties. This is significantly lower than other countries that have also imposed citizen spending limits. It is not an exaggeration to say that the limits imposed on citizens amount to a virtual ban on their participation in political debate during the election period. In actuality, the only space left in the marketplace of ideas is for political parties and their candidates. The right of each citizen to have her voice heard, so vaunted in Figueroa, supra, is effectively negated unless the citizen is able or willing to speak through a political party.

36 On this point, this case is indistinguishable from Libman, supra, where the Court held that the spending limits imposed on citizens in the course of a referendum campaign did not satisfy the requirement of minimal impairment. The Court held that the
legislature in a case such as this must try to strike a balance between the right to free expression and equality among the citizens in expressing their views. The limits imposed failed to meet the minimal impairment test in the case of individuals and groups who could neither join nor affiliate themselves with the national committees. The Court stated that the restrictions were so severe that they came close to being a total ban and that better, less intrusive alternatives existed. The situation is precisely the same here.

37 In Libman, supra, at para. 63, the Court stated that “[i]t can be seen from the evidence that the legislature went to considerable lengths, in good faith, in order to adopt means that would be as non-intrusive as possible while at the same time respecting the objective it had set.Here, too, Parliaments good faith is advanced, said to be evidenced by the ongoing dialogue with the courts as to where the limits should be set. But as in Libman, good faith cannot remedy an impairment of the right to freedom of expression.

38. There is no demonstration that limits this draconian are required to meet the perceived dangers of inequality, an uninformed electorate and the public perception that the system is unfair. On the contrary, the measures may themselves exacerbate these dangers. Citizens who cannot effectively communicate with others on electoral issues may feel they are being treated unequally compared to citizens who speak through political parties. The absence of their messages may result in the public being less well informed than it would otherwise be. And a process that bans citizens from effective participation in the electoral debate during an election campaign may well be perceived as unfair. These fears may be hypothetical, but no more so than the fears conjured by the Attorney General in support of the infringement.

39 This is not to suggest that election spending limits are never
permissible. On the contrary, this Court in Libman has recognized that they are an acceptable, even desirable, tool to ensure fairness and faith in the electoral process. Limits that permit citizens to conduct effective and persuasive communication with their fellow citizens might well meet the minimum impairment test. The problem here is that the draconian nature of the infringement to effectively deprive all those who do not or cannot speak through political parties of their voice during an election period overshoots the perceived danger. Even recognizing that [t]he tailoring process seldom admits of perfection (RJR-MacDonald, supra, at para. 160), and according Parliament a healthy measure of deference, we are left with the fact that nothing in the evidence suggests that a virtual ban on citizen communication through effective advertising is required to avoid the hypothetical evils of inequality, a misinformed public and loss of public confidence in the system.

In any event, the time has come for the law to be repealed. This is particularly so if you look at the nominal plaintiff in the Charter challenge to the Supreme Court (Hint: He is the Prime Minister of Canada). The Harper Government can give people back their voice, allow them to organize and to attempt to influence people to subscribe to their point of view. Perhaps you will not like the position of someone. Perhaps you will find it offensive. Perhaps it will motivate you to get involved in the process and work for a particular candidate or party. Or, perhaps the advertising and spending will have no influence on you at all. The fact is that the ability of individuals to express themselves as they see fit is worthy of protection while the electorate need less protection from themselves than the social scientists happen to believe.

So, Mr. Harper, if you happen to be reading, repeal the third party election spending provisions of the Canada Elections Act. There will not be a public outcry and you will make some friends on the Libertarian side of the fence.

And while you are in the mood for good policy, drop the three strikes and you're out idea.