Thursday, February 23, 2006

Supreme Court pick Rothstein Roundup

Here is what people are saying about Harper's new Supreme Court pick:

Stephen Taylor:
I really like what Harper is doing with this new transparent process.
Most Canadians likely can name more US Supreme Court justices than
Canadian Supreme Court justices.

Wikipedia is all over this:
Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper has chosen Rothstein as his nomination to the top court, he will now undergo a public hearing in an 'ad-hoc committee of parlimentarians,' a new step in the judicial appointment process created by Stephen Harper in consultation with constitutional law expert Peter Hogg.
Non sequitur:
I noticed that in the French Canoe.ca coverage of Marshall Rothstein being Harper's nominee to the SCC,
they felt it necessary to point out that he'll be the 3rd Jewish person
on the bench. As far as i can tell, none of the English coverage felt
it necessary to mention that.
The Black Kettle:
THIS IS INEXCUSABLE. WHAT DO THE HARPER DEFENDERS SAY NOW?
Anonalogue:
Marshall Rothstein, I don't think so.




Monday, February 20, 2006

How Google Maps Got Me Out Of A Traffic Ticket:
"So who was the judge to believe? I was desperate for proof so I did the unthinkable: I whipped out my notebook. I was very lucky to find an extremely bad connection via Wi-Fi. I pulled up Firefox and went to maps.google.com."
It's semi-dramatic. Read it. Maps and all.

Saturday, February 18, 2006

Where is the Potent Pew?

The Potent Pew is taking a bit of a break. We are getting to reload and re-launch a newly redesigned website. So far, it is looking fantastic.

Stay tuned.

Vatican Brings Down Government

Thanks to several Danish cartoons, appraisals and examinations of freedom of speech have swamped editorials and opinion columns in western media.

But what about freedom of conscience?


Vatican abortion treaty brings down government


Nicholas Watt
Saturday February 11, 2006
The Guardian

The Vatican has inadvertently triggered the collapse of the government in Slovakia, one of the economic stars of the 10 entrants to the EU, in a row over abortion rights.
The parliament in Bratislava voted on Thursday to hold elections early, on June 17, after Christian Democrats quit Mikulas Dzurinda's centre-right minority coalition government.
The party is angry with the prime minister after he refused to endorse a draft treaty with the Vatican that would have allowed healthcare workers in hospitals founded by the Catholic church to refuse to carry out abortions on conscience grounds. http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,,1707579,00.html


“This agreement [“Treaty between the Republic of Slovakia and the Holy See on the Right to Exercise Conscientious Objection”] would protect the right of all to exercise conscientious objection in relation to universal values, the group said. 

Thus a Catholic doctor would have the right to refuse to participate in objectionable practices such as abortions, assisted procreation, experimentation with human embryos, euthanasia and sterilization”
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=84176

Paul Belien, editor of Brusselsjournal.com shrewdly remarked:

“Two clashes of civilization are currently taking place in Europe. Freedom-loving people having to fight on two fronts. One involves the radical segment of the immigrant Muslim population that opposes basic Western values such as freedom of speech and that is intent on imposing Islamic taboos (such as the mere fact of depicting their prophet Muhammad) on the non-Islamic population. The other involves radical secularists that want to eradicate all remnants of traditional Christian culture from post-Christian Europe by restricting the right to conscientious objection on the part of religious people.”

According to the EU “Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights” doctors should sometimes be forced to perform abortions, even if they have conscientious objections, because the right to abort a child is an “international human right,” while the right to conscientious objection is not “unlimited.”
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/794

For further reading here is a link to the EU document regarding, “the Right to Conscientious objection and the conclusion by EU member states of concordats with the Holy See”.
http://www.crlp.org/pdf/CFR-CDFopinion4-2005.pdf


As Europe stands together in solidarity proclaiming ‘Freedom of Speech’ through provocative publications and republications must it not also look inwards to the bludgeoning of its own freedoms?

Should the priority be to champion the freedom of provocative actions or passive objections?

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Early controversy hasn't hurt Tory support, poll suggests - Yahoo! News

Early controversy hasn't hurt Tory support, poll suggests - Yahoo! News: "
The Decima Research survey of 1,010 adult Canadians, conducted between Feb. 9 and 13, suggests there has been no significant change in national support for the Tories.

Thirty-five per cent of respondents said they would vote Conservative, compared with 36 per cent who cast ballots on election day.

The poll put support for the Liberals at 25 per cent, down five percentage points from Jan. 23.

Twenty-four per cent of respondents backed the NDP, up from 17.5 per cent election day."

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Iran demands apology over German cartoon

Wednesday February 15, 2006
The Guardian

A German newspaper yesterday published a cartoon depicting the Iranian football team dressed as suicide bombers, opening up a new front in the row over caricatures of the prophet Muhammad.

Iran immediately demanded an apology from Der Tagesspiegel, which showed four Iranian players at this summer's World Cup in Germany with explosives attached to their chests. A caption read: "Why the German army should definitely be used during the football World Cup." The general secretary of Iran's sports press association yesterday described the latest caricature as a "black joke". The Iranian embassy in Berlin called for an apology, saying the cartoon was "an immoral act".



.....Iran's bestselling newspaper, Hamshahri, yesterday defended its competition for cartoons about the Holocaust, saying it was a test of the free speech allegedly espoused by western countries. The contest is a serious exercise in debate, said Mohammadreza Zaeri, publisher of Hamshahri. "We do not want to make fun of anyone with this competition, we just want to raise a question to find an answer which is very important for us."
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoonprotests/story/0,,1710020,00.html)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone else not see the unequivocal parallels between the two Iranian statements?

Monday, February 13, 2006

The Mohammad Cartoon controversy comes to Canada via the Western Standard

Western Standard's Ezra Levant (EL), publisher, was interviewed by the CBC this morning:

"EL: ...I don't mean to be rude Harry, but why hasn't the CBC shown the cartoons?

HF: You could easily cover that news without showing the cartoons.

EL: Well, I'm not sure 'easily' because you wouldn't know what the cartoons are like.

HF: They've been published elsewhere and are available on the Internet..."

Dumb answer. Why is the CBC even reporting the news at all, then, if that is the reason they aren't publishing the cartoons? Since all the news the CBC reports is already published elsewhere and is available on the Internet, why do they even bother publishing news covered by other news sources? Like I said...dumb response.

COMMENTING on Ezra Levant's decision to publish the cartoons, Mohamed Elmasry, leader of the Canadian Islamic Congress, had this to say: "I think he really goes against the will and the values of Canadians by this provocative action."

Let me just ad hominem Elmasry by mentioning the fact that he once remarked that "Anyone above [the age of] 18 [in Israel] is a combatant", meaning that they are a "legitimate targets." When asked again whether "Anyone in Israel, irrespective of gender, over the age of 18 is a valid target?", Elmasry replied: "Yes, I would say,"

Take Elmasry's comments with a grain of salt.

The Stranger posts Mohammed Cartoons

... what’s happening here is that a gang of bullies—led by a country, Saudi Arabia, where Bibles are forbidden, Christians tortured, Jews routinely labeled “apes and pigs” in the state-controlled media, and apostasy from Islam punished by death—is trying to compel a tiny democracy to live by its own theocratic rules. To succumb to pressure from this gang would simply be to invite further pressure, and lead to further concessions—not just by Denmark but by all of democratic Europe. And when they’ve tamed Europe, they’ll come after America.

After all, the list of Western phenomena that offend the sensibilities of many Muslims is a long one—ranging from religious liberty, sexual equality, and the right of gay people not to have a wall dropped on them, to music, alcohol, dogs, and pork. After a few Danish cartoons, what’s next? - The Stranger - News - Feature - All the Rage:

It is important to thoroughly consider who it is that are re-publishing and distributing these cartoons.

Some folks like to point, with a look-at-them-right-wingers-go glee, those folks posting the Mohammed cartoons.

Yet, certainly Seattle's The Stranger is nowhere close to being labeled a right wing paper and they have evidently posted several of the cartoons on their website and perhaps published them too (to be confirmed).

And what about the clerics that distributed the cartoons in the Muslim world? What makes them different from Levant, publisher of the Western Standard? Shouldn't they be scolded just as much as newspaper publishers for distributing the materials in question?