Thursday, April 19, 2012

Manufactured rights vs inalienable.

A few things have topped my thoughts in the last few days, and they are: Human rights (conscience, thought and belief), Omar Khadr (and the Geneva convention), and gay marriage, abortion, and feminism.

Seems like a pretty random collection of items, but when they are put under the initial topic of Human rights, they do all fit. Fair warning this could be a long post, which started for me at 3:38a.m. while I was trying to sleep.

Let's start at the beginning with Human Rights: Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."  Wikipedia.  In short as I understand them a Human right must apply to everyone equally. 

This moves us logically on to Gay marriage, and the “right” to it. First off it should be obvious that the “Institution” of marriage is not a right, it is a human contrivances, not something we were born to receive but something man has put in place therefore to be granted by those that sanction it. This is what can be considered a “Manufactured right”, because it applies to only a specific (and small) group of people rather than the whole. The same can be said for the “right” to Abortion, even more so because it violates the Human Right to LIFE that the aborted human has (Zygote, cluster of cells, we can try to justify it by renaming it all we want, but there is only one thing it will ever turn out to be, and that is a human being.)

Of course these two items bring us to a hot button issue in the current 2012 Alberta Provincial Election, Conscience Rights. Here we are talking about an ACTUAL Human Right, belonging to all people, which is trying to be superseded by the manufactured rights of gay marriage and abortion. Wilfred Laurier said The rights of each man (er, and woman) end precisely at the point where they encroach upon the rights of others”. These are called individual rights, and to have the expectation that others will respect yours, you have the obligation to respect theirs. Rights must apply equally to all people, institutions man has created should, but can not be subjected to, if they violate another’s inalienable human rights.

Both of these manufactured rights are part of a social re-engineering experiment taking place in our society: we are unaware of the consequences they yet hold, but you can be sure that in time they will bear fruit, just as Feminism has.

Feminism has not stopped at women's right, but has gone beyond equal rights of men, to the need to reduce/remove men in the lives of women. Feminism has also left a void in society that was once filled by a compassionate caregiver who instilled in their children a sense of identity and belonging. This has been replaced by the emotionally (sometimes) strong, sexually free, absentee mother role model, which has been replaced by the entertainment industry, and peers, as the main emotional caregiver and nurturer. We are coming upon a generation of lost ad confused kids, and we can see that the social experiment of Feminism may be fine for those that had what today’s kids are missing out on, but not so fine for this generation (and potentially worse for the next.)

I understand that today we have many more single parents, many of which have no choice but to work to support their children (to my dismay), but what social re-engineering took place to cause the current state? (Look back at the 60's and 70's and you will find your answer.)

Finally I move on to Omar Kadhr; This is troubling on so many levels. I keep hearing him called a “child soldier”, yet according to the Geneva Convention rule 136 Children MUST NOT be recruited into armed forces or armed groups. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/612-136?OpenDocument Ok so then he wasn't a soldier at the time when he admitted to killing a US soldier, then what was he? If not a civilian based on his actions as a combatant by throwing a grenade, and not a soldier according to the Geneva Convention, there is only one other option, a Terrorist. This makes me question the insistence that the left parties in Canada have, that he should be immediately repatriated and incarcerated here because his “Charter Rights” were violated. Didn't this person violate someone else's HUMAN RIGHT to life?

Human rights, if not applied equally to all people, have no value to them. Manufactured rights are at best social re-engineering our society, and the courts should be forced, by responsible Government, out of this practice.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Quebec student "strike".

The ongoing saga of the Quebec student initiative to stop the minor increase ($325/annum)  in tuition rates, as set to come into place by the Charest Provincial Government, is starting to come to an uncomfortable conclusion as the term wraps up.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120417/quebec-student-tuition-protests-120417/

If the students protesting the hike don't finish their assignments, and write the final exams, they may end up losing the terms credits. Some institutions are extending the term to try to help accommodate the students in their fight.

There are numerous issues I have with the situation, and none of them are with the increase:
1. The need for an increase in tuition is inevitable, to compete properly you need good teachers, equipment, and facilities, all of which have incurred cost increases.
2. The students are customers of the service provided by the institution, and in future will benefit by the knowledge they should be willing to pay for now.
3. The same students protesting at the end of this term, may lose all the money they just spent on it to make their point. I equated this on twitter today like "Holding their collective breath till they fail out", the same way children throw a temper tantrum.
4. Quebec will still have the LOWEST tuition rates in ALL of Canada, which is now being subsidized by federal transfers, in effect having the productive portions of Canada paying for their cheap costs.
5. The "Strike" has been alienating those very taxpayers that help fund low tuition within Quebec, who are suffering from loss of revenue due to obstruction and vandalism.
6. The "Strikers" have alienated the rest of Canada by showing us an unprecedented level of entitlement that could have only come from Quebec.

Just to name a few.

Monday, April 16, 2012

Redefinition of Rights.


I'm a law and order guy, I live trying to follow all the rules of society. I take issue however at some of the laws/law enforcement agencies that have been infringing on one of our inalienable Human Rights. By this I am referring to the specific right of self preservation, or self defense. Now I see this as an obviously inalienable right, but apparently the courts and justice system has begun to decide that if you fight back you will be charged with a crime. What the hell kind of nonsense crap is that?

One thing we are born with is the will to fight to survive; no matter what outlook you take on Human development, the one thing that stands true is that we all fight to survive (whether physically or emotionally). It's in our DNA, the will to survive has pushed people to do incredible things just to remain so. Take the young hiker/rock climber Aron Ralston, who cut off his own arm to survive after being trapped in a canyon. These are the instincts we are born with, FIGHT TO SURVIVE. This works the same in the case of self defense, you do what is necessary to make the situation safe for you and yours.

Take for example the late night firebombing of Ian Thomson's home. After the attack began Ian, who was fortunate enough to have a firearm, took his weapon out and scared the attackers off by discharging it without harming the people that were trying to burn down his home with his wife and himself STILL INSIDE! Yet the police charged HIM with “careless use of a firearm”. He has now been tied up in court for 6 years for appropriately using HIS INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHT to defend himself! I credit Mr. Thomson for his self control, because I feel he was justified in aiming directly at his ATTACKERS.

Let's talk about a restaurant owner more recently, who was charged after defending himself with a broomstick and some SPICES! After having multiple items stolen, in multiple instances, Mr Polapady fought back when he caught a thief in the act. However the police decided to victimize him further by charging him with assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and the coup de grace “Administering a Noxious substance” (which can have a jail term of 14 years). Let's bear in mind that his wife and kids were just upstairs, and his thoughts were of protecting his family and property.

So here's the question; When you are being attacked by another person, how is it “against the law” to fight back?

This in itself pits those that are law abiding AGAINST the LAW, by criminalizing THE VICTIM! How does this make any sense? How has this been allowed to happen? In a society that is all about making new rights for everything, how the hell are they allowing the degradation of a most basic and fundamentally inalienable right?

It makes no sense that a society based on the rule of law would subject victims to even more abuse by laying charges, on top of suffering from criminal activities. The very thought of it suggests our law enforcement are no better than the thugs they are supposed to be there to protect us from.

I don't put that last statement out there lightly either, because I have an enormous amount of respect for the men and women of law enforcement that put themselves on the front line for the safety of others. However I think they have also forgotten that people can, will, and should protect themselves if it is required, because waiting for the police is not always an option.

A few links for interests sake;
The Constitution act 1867: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/PRINT_E.PDF
The Constitution act: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-11.html#sc:7:s_1
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Charter/
Canadian Constitution Foundation: http://constitutionday.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Curriculum.pdf

Saturday, April 07, 2012

The Modern protester.

Protests use to be held for "free love", and "Integration". Now they consist of "Free condoms", "Free money" (While drinking the "we are the 99% Kool-aid"), and basically "Free University"!

See the difference?

Free birth control; If you go before congress in the US and say you need $6000 a year for birth control, you might be a liberal (or a ______).

Free money; Protesting all the while in $150 nike shoes, and checking facebook on an iPhone.

And lastly Free University; Quebec has the lowest costs for tuition in the Country, yet it is the ONLY Province to have a mass student uproar over a less than $400 a year increase (over 5 years).  I guess the only real culture in Quebec is one of entitlement.