Saturday, February 28, 2009

The "real" victims and self defence

Don't read this unless you have a strong stomach.

Who is the victim here? Common sense would dictate that Audrey Cooper is. However, I contend that the courts will consider the kids who murdered her to be the true victims. Bah. Had this woman had a gun and in the process of defending herself had killed one or more of her attackers then there is no doubt in my mind that she would be behind bars and the teens would be given counseling to overcome the death of their fellow hooligans.

This case highlights a point that many people seem to miss.

The police to not exist to protect you. Period. They simply do not have the resources to offer true protection to every citizen.

The police exist to clean up after a crime and to catch the people responsible. That means you are on your own in terms of defending yourself.

Crime is prevented by the combination of an efficient and effective police force and a judiciary that hands out appropriate sentences. A weakness in either branch will allow crime to flourish. Either criminals are simply not caught or their sentences do not keep them isolated from society for a sufficient period.

Canada has an effective police force but unfortunately a weak judicial branch with a serious case of Monday-morning-quarterbacking when it comes to self defense issues.

Man I feel like a woman

A pre-op transsexual wanted to join a gym in Southern Ontario and use the women's change room. The owner said he would have to consider it thinking that his female patrons may feel uncomfortable having a person with male genitals in the women's change room.

Sorry pal, apparently you should have said "Yes, of course!" right away.

The OHRC seems a little out to lunch on this one:

The code does not distinguish between transsexuals who are at different stages of transition, said Afroze Edwards, a spokeswoman for the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

"I think the important thing to remember there is how they identify themselves; what their sense is, that they are living as a man or living as a woman," Ms. Edwards said. "Regardless of whether they're preop or postop, it's their lived gender that's important." pre-op but living as a woman counts as a woman. That pretty much opens the door for any man to use the female change room if he feels sufficiently female that day. Should that individual be confronted about their constantly changing "gender" then they only need to reply that they are exploring their sexuality and threaten a Human Rights complaint.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Bizzaro World

Where the criminals sue the police (or those who just want the law enforced).

The next step is to have someone sue the US for not invading their country.

Low hanging fruit

The UK does it again.

Wilders is low hanging fruit. There is no risk in banning him. There will be no uprising, violent protests or terrorists bombings because of the UK government's actions.

This quote takes the cake:

Mr Wilders, 45, was classed as someone considered likely to incite hatred and his visit a threat to 'community harmony and therefore public security'.

Right. And those other radical yahoos they have let in aren't a threat at all. You know, the ones who DO encourage violence, the ones who DO call for the destruction of the UK.

Way to go guys. CLAP. CLAP. CLAP.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Human Rights Tribunal Forces Restaurant Owner to Break the Law

A couple of years ago a restaurant owner asked a man smoking marijuana at the front door of his place to move on. Unfortunately for the owner, the man filed a human rights complaint and the owner is now forced into a lose-lose situation.

The punishment handed down by the Tribunal:

He was ordered to pay Gibson $2,000 for pain and suffering, train the bar staff
in the human rights code, educate the public about the code, and post signs in
the restaurant and on his website saying he accommodates authorized marijuana

Hold the phone - complying with that order will cause him to lose his liquor license:

“A liquor licence holder may not permit a person to have, use, distribute or
sell controlled substances in his or her establishment,” the act states
emphatically, meaning to serve Gibson would be illegal if he is carrying

So now he has two choices - comply with the Tribunal's decision, lose his liquor license and then very likely go bankrupt OR fight the Tribunal and very likely go bankrupt from lawyers fees.

Truly this is a great country we live in where in order to obey the law you have to break the law.

Sunday, February 8, 2009

Sunday Reader

The one time I went to traffic court to fight a speeding ticket (I won) another defendant attempted to use the excuse "my car can't do 80km/h in third gear". The judge didn't believe her.

Perhaps she should have taken the steps that this guy did. I would probably have done the same thing.


Chemical warfare is slightly older than expected.


Speaking of unconventional warfare...

Standard infection vector or plague bomb gone wrong?


I mistyped the address of my blog (switched the 's' and 'p' in blogspot) and ended up here. Interesting!

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Repeating another's words is enough to get you convicted

If there is really nothing more to this story, then pretty much anyone can get $7000.

"The complainant, Leslie Tataquason, admitted no racial epithets were used during the brief exchange with Northwoods Inn and Suites owner John Pontes more than two years ago."

Ok, so no racial epithets... So what were the hideously offensive comments? Here they are:

"Can't you see she's working? Get out, this isn't the friendship centre!"


""go ahead and call his chief." (in response to the accuser saying that he would call his chief)

Doesn't sound so bad, but look at the effect!

"Tataquason said he was "deeply hurt" by the remarks. It caused him to "trigger" memories of residential schools he has tried to bury since childhood. Tataquason testified that he "spiraled into depression," leaving him unable to work. The remark is also responsible for his return to drug use, his marriage breakup, his homelessness and his committing petty crimes, Tataquason testified."

So if those two comments caused such a dramatic effect, I have to ask how in the world this guy ever got sober in the first place? I'm sure he's heard plenty worse.

Link round up

A UK TV station decided to make a reality show with a group of kids living together with no parents. I think I've read this story before...ah yes...Lord of the Flies.

For some reason, people were surprised that life imitated fiction.


I had always wondered how female suicide bombers were convinced to push the button. It turns out that they are raped and then convinced that blowing themselves up is the only way to erase the sin of being raped.


This is what happens when you combine a visit to the dentist with a video camera.


Reduce, reuse, recycle. Sounds good to me.


Sunday, February 1, 2009

If it hits the fan

What would you do if your country suddenly collapsed?

Here's a fascinating first hand account of what occurred and is still occurring in Argentina. The author's main blog is here.

In terms of crime, once people figured out that the police weren't going to arrest anyone, all hell broke loose. Basically the country has turned into the Wild West to an extent. Some towns are even building moats.

One of the more concerning aspects was that nobody really acknowledged that malnutrition was a problem until teachers began noticing that their students were slowing getting dumber.

The short checklist:

1. Get guns, a silencer and body armour, you are dead without them.
2. Get a small 4x4 and don't stop for anything. If someone stands in front of your car run them down.
3. Move to a small town or suburbia. The inner city is far too dangerous because there are too many people. Living in a bunker in the middle of nowhere is equally dangerous because you are all alone and you can be subject to prolonged attack because there will be nobody to come help you.

Cease fire means actually ceasing fire

Rockets continue to fire out of Gaza.

Hey Hamas - if it isn't you then perhaps you should stop whoever it is because, you know, you claim to be in charge. If not, expect another "disproportionate response".

What if...

Here's a question to ponder...

What if unemployment insurance, CPP (or Social Security) and the rest of the social safety hammock simply did not exist? For the purposes of this question, please assume that Canada's health care system remains as is.

How would YOU run your life differently than today? Would you save more money? Be extremely wary about taking on debt? Contribute more to charity?