Saturday, December 2, 2017

Canada's Supreme Court "Judges" Criminalize Hurting Criminals' Feelings!

From here:

Supreme Court upholds Canada's hate speech laws in case involving anti-gay crusader

Canada's human rights hate speech laws are a constitutionally valid limit on freedom of expression, the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled in a landmark judgment.

Ted Jacob/Postmedia News

Canada’s human rights hate speech laws are a constitutionally valid limit on freedom of expression, the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled in a landmark judgment.
The judgment in the case of William Whatcott of Saskatchewan reaffirms the Canadian approach to hate speech, that it can be limited by law to address the problem of hate speech, unlike the American approach, in which speech cannot be limited except in the most extreme circumstances.
In upholding a definition of hatred first crafted by the Supreme Court in 1991, the current justices ruled that the hate speech section of Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Code addresses a pressing and substantial issue, and is proportional to its objective of “tackling causes of discriminatory activity to reduce the harmful effects and social costs of discrimination.”
The court struck out some strange language in the law, which bans speech that “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” identifiable groups — language that the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission said was already ignored in practice.
But it upheld the controversial legal concept of speech that is “likely to expose” certain groups to hatred.
That's insane! "Hatred" is only someone else's internal emotions! If their proposed judge-made "law" had said the speech is likely to expose certain people (not groups) to violence, it might have made at least some sense - but they didn't, so it doesn't!
The Saskatchewan law, which is similar to others in Alberta, B.C., the Northwest Territories and federally, “appropriately balances the fundamental values underlying freedom of expression with competing Charter rights and other values essential to a free and democratic society, in this case a commitment to equality and respect for group identity and the inherent dignity owed to all human beings,” wrote Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein for the court.
There is no "balance" between " competing essential values" and "rights," you morons! Especially not a commitment to "equality" and "respect for group identity" (gang membership) or any "inherent dignity owed to all human beings" (i.e: Don't hurt the criminals' feelings by notifying them that you disapprove of their crimes! It's "hurtful")!
“Framing speech as arising in a moral context or within a public policy debate does not cleanse it of its harmful effect,” the judges decided.
Exactly as I just noted: It's now illegal to "harm" an immoral criminal by accusing it of it's "crimes" no matter how immoral they might have been! The Truth often hurts, so using it against someone in denial of their own culpability and guilt is now "illegal!" 
The judges reinstated Mr. Whatcott’s conviction by a hate speech tribunal in the case of two anti-gay fliers he distributed, but overturned it in the case of two others.
"I have to follow Christ first. What I have said is true. There’s not a sentence that I retract, so likely future fliers will be more of the same" Mr/ Whatcott said.

As advice to future hate tribunals, the judges offered three main pieces of guidance.
First, these laws must be applied objectively, which is difficult in the case of subjective emotion, though not impossible, the judges ruled. The key is to focus on the effects of hate speech, not the intent of the speaker.
Focusing on the emotional effects of "hate" speech is the very definition of subjectivity, because taking offense at others' words (true or false) is purely an individual choice!
Second, hate must be understood to be the extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words “detestation” and “vilification,” but nothing less.
Exactly: it's a display of someone else's emotions - which cannot cause physical harm.
“This filters out expression which, while repugnant and offensive, does not incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination or other harmful effects,” they wrote.
So they again postulate that there's some sort of objectively-definable level of "hate" which anyone can experience, which will "trigger" them into committing violent acts?! Not even! They only worry about "discrimination" - in other words: using one's brains!
Third, tribunals must focus their analysis on the effect of the expression at issue, namely whether it is likely to expose the targeted person or group to hatred by others.
In other words, does complaining about a criminals' crimes increase their risk of being accused, arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced and punished for their crimes, or not?!
“The repugnancy of the ideas being expressed is not sufficient to justify restricting the expression, and whether or not the author of the expression intended to incite hatred or discriminatory treatment is irrelevant. The key is to determine the likely effect of the expression on its audience, keeping in mind the legislative objectives to reduce or eliminate discrimination,” they decided.
"Legislative efforts to reduce or eliminate discrimination" = no free-thinking allowed!
“The difficulty of establishing causality and the seriousness of the harm to vulnerable groups justifies the imposition of preventive measures that do not require proof of actual harm,” the judgement reads. Group rights now legally trump individual ones!
Christopher Pike for National Post

In an interview, Mr. Whatcott said he will continue his activism and pamphleting, knowing the price may be high.
A financial penalty of $17,500 is to be reinstated against him, and disregarding a tribunal order to stop spreading hate speech can lead to contempt of court and jail.
In other words, if someone else takes offense at your words, we will jail you for them!
“I’m certainly weighing this, because it’s going to be at great personal cost to me,” Mr. Whatcott said. “I have to follow Christ first. What I have said is true. There’s not a sentence that I retract, so likely future fliers will be more of the same.”
He contrasted “spurious” Holocaust denial, often a target of hate tribunals, with his “medical facts” about homosexuality.
“I think it’s a dark day for freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and more profoundly for me, freedom to speak the truth. It’s a very dark day for Canada,” he said.
He said he expected a split decision.
Mark Freiman, a former deputy Attorney-General of Ontario who argued at the Supreme Court on behalf of the Canadian Jewish Congress, said the ruling was a “reaffirmation” of principles first articulated by the Supreme Court 20 years ago, in the case of hate hotline operator John Ross Taylor.
Those principles — that it is constitutionally valid to limit a fundamental right, in this case limiting speech that exposes people to hatred based on their membership in a group — were often lost in the rancorous debate over hate speech law, he said.
“I think because the debate tends to focus on what group is being maligned, we sometimes don’t actually think through what the implications are. That’s why the court is always very careful to separate the principle from any political debate. What’s involved is not a political debate, what’s involved is an attack on people based on the fact that they are members of a group. It’s not just stereotyping, but it’s demonization,” Mr. Freiman said. 
It depends if the group or gang membership is voluntary or not, or if the crime-gang membership, even if involuntary, denotes a threat to others regardless. It should always be legal to defend one's self and/or innocent others, even from persons who are being coerced into threatening one's health and life (for instance, in the case of muslims who are born into the death-cult, but who remain an existential threat to all non-muslims, even though they did not join islam voluntarily).
He said Section 13, a similar federal law against internet hate speech, is effectively upheld constitutionally by this ruling, but could still be repealed according to a private member’s bill that is now before the Senate.
Fortunately, it was repealed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper - which obviously had no effect on the criminal precedents set by these Supreme Court "Judge's" ruling.
“If a government believes that these protections are not necessary, it has the right to revoke them,” he said.
Damned right they should - and they should also fire and jail you for making them, too!
Richard Moon, a University of Windsor constitutional law expert, said the court’s focus on the objective effects of hate speech, rather than the subjective intent of the speaker, is problematic. That's because the effects are really also only subjective in nature!
“I think it’s still a problem not to talk about intent in this context,” he said.
He said the most extreme forms of hate speech caught by these laws are described in terms of their objective effects on a target group, even though strict proof is not required. But the less extreme forms of speech that should be protected are described in subjective terms, like “offense” or “humiliation.” Inciting violence is already illegal.
That avoids the “line-drawing problem,” he said, and the ruling effectively “pretends that the line [between hate speech and free speech] can be drawn brightly by framing the harm of extreme and less extreme forms of speech in different terms… That just avoids the problem.”
“Any decision maker [at a tribunal] has the same problem they always have,” he said.
“The Supreme Court missed an excellent opportunity to rein in the power of various human rights commissions and tribunals to censor the expression of unpopular beliefs and opinions,” said Chris Schafer, executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, which intervened in the case. 
Worse than that, they committed "law-crime!" (or Crime Under Colour or cover of Law)!

Thursday, November 30, 2017

Scientists Create Artificial Life At Last!

LIFE AT LAST!!!



I can decodify your DNA into a simple binary computer program! Welcome to the Matrix - for real! Creating life is pretty simple:

At the atomic and molecular levels, ALL matter is formed into crystalline matrices, right? Thus even air and water molecules are tiny crystals; thus we are all LITERALLY part of an infinite mirror; reflecting everything else exactly; we are literally made (with-)in the IMAGE "of God!" Reflect on this; use your image-in-ation!

Your own genome (that which defines you physically) is a string of 3.2 billion nucleotides, each of which is a kind of necklace bead imprinted with one of the four letters:

A, T, G, and C.

If we represent these four letters by the bit combinations:

11, 10, 01, and 00,

...then we obtain a sequence of 6.4 billion bits, or 800 megabytes.

That makes the complete blueprint for your body a large, but not extremely large, computer file. It would fit on a single compact disk.

It won't be long before 3D printing technology enables anyone to create any living thing from basic inanimate elements.

AND ... HERE ... WE ... GO!!!



From here:

SCIENTISTS TAKE STEP TOWARD CREATING ARTIFICIAL LIFE

Nov 30, 2017
SOURCE: REUTERS

In a major step toward creating artificial life, U.S. researchers have developed a living organism that incorporates both natural and artificial DNA and is capable of creating entirely new, synthetic proteins, Reuters reports.

The work, published in the journal Nature, brings scientists closer to the development of designer proteins made to order in a laboratory.

Previous work by Floyd Romesberg, a chemical biologist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, showed that it was possible to expand the genetic alphabet of natural DNA beyond its current four letters:

adenine(A), cytosine(C), guanine (G) and thymine(T).

In 2014, Romesberg and colleagues created a strain of E. coli bacteria that contained two unnatural letters, X and Y.

In the latest work, Romesberg’s team has shown that this partially synthetic form of E. coli can take instructions from this hybrid genetic alphabet to make new proteins.

“This is the first time ever a cell has translated a protein using something other than G, C, A or T,” Romesberg said.

Although the actual changes to the organism were small, the feat is significant, he said in a telephone interview. “It’s the first change to life ever made.”

It’s a goal Romesberg has been working toward for the past 20 years. Creating new forms of life, however, is not the main point. Romesberg is interested in using this expanded genetic alphabet to create new types of proteins that can be used to treat disease.

In 2014, he formed a company called Synthorx Inc, which is working on developing new protein-based treatments.

“A lot of proteins that you want to use as drugs get cleared in the kidney very quickly,” Romesberg said. The new system would allow scientists to attach fat molecules to drugs to keep them in the body longer.

Romesberg is aware that the creation of semi-synthetic organisms might raise concerns of hybrid life forms spreading beyond the lab, but the system they used makes such an escape unlikely.

For example, in natural DNA, base pairs are attracted to each other through the bonding of hydrogen atoms.

Romesberg’s X and Y bases are attracted through an entirely different process, which prevents them from accidentally bonding with natural bases.

And because cells cannot make their own X and Y without the addition of certain chemicals, the semi-synthetic organisms cannot live outside of a laboratory.


Kosovo's Muslim Invaders Opt To Re-Join Turkish Albania

This proves they admit they were always foreign invaders - and it justifies another war to expel them!

From here:

KOSOVO’S PLAN B: IF NOT ACCEPTED INTO EU, (RE)JOIN ALBANIA

If Kosovo does not reach its goal of the international recognition of independence by February next year, when it will mark ten years of self-proclaimed autonomy from Serbia, Kosovo will hold a referendum on joining Albania, a source in Pristina told Sputnik Serbia.
On the eve of the 105th anniversary of the independence of Albania, which the country marks on November 28, commemorating the declaration of the autonomy from the Ottoman Empire back in 1912, the main square in the capital of Kosovo, Serbia’s majority-Albanian former province, is decorated with the red-black national flags of its neighboring state.
Kosovo’s Prime Minister Ramush Haradinaj has made Albanian Flag Day one of the self-proclaimed state’s national holidays.
According to a statement made by Kosovo’s President Hashim Thaci, “Kosovo’s borders with Albania should be opened, following the example of the European Union.”
A source in Pristina, who wished not to reveal his name, has noted to Sputnik Serbia that “such synchronization of efforts is not as naive as it seems at first sight.”
He further pointed out that even though ten years has passed since the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo, it is still far from being an internationally recognized sovereign state. And the decade-old euphoria among those who supported the independent Kosovo has faded.
“Kosovan leaders must offer something to their citizens, so obviously they have moved on to plan B: “if they do not want to accept us into the EU, we will move on to Albania.” In other words, if nothing changes, they will revive their old threat and hold a referendum on joining Albania,” the source suggested.
He further suggested that Ramush Haradinaj might have made the holiday of a neighboring country a state holiday of his own “so-called state” not for the sake of preserving cultural values.
“It would have been the same as if Germany celebrated Holland’s Independence Day, or vice versa (on the condition, of course, that Kosovo is an independent state). The Flag Day of November 28 is the same very day when the Albanians adopted a document proclaiming the independence of Albania at a meeting in the city of Vlore in 1912. This document, adopted by the People’s Assembly, which included representatives of four regions with Albanian populations (Kosovo, Shkodra (Scutar) Janina and Bitola vilayets), created Albania,” he explained.
On the other hand, he noted, Thaci’s statements that the borders of Kosovo and Albania should be opened following the example of within the EU, is just “hot air.”
“There are practically no borders between Kosovo and Albania. What Thaci is trying to do is gain official support for abolishing these borders on paper, by explaining that this is not an association, but a simplification of communication between the citizens of the two countries. Of course, Thaci would not have said this if he was not given a green light to do it. Besides, I am sure that it was also not without the blessing from Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama, who has serious tensions with the European Union over the EU’s treatment of Kosovo and Albania,” the source opined.
The authorities in Pristina, he asserted, are trying to revive the “national spirit” in their citizens in order to raise their approval ratings, because this is very important for achieving success on the international arena.
“It is a well-known fact that for Europe, the Albanian factor is a nightmare, as it simultaneously affects five countries in the Balkans [supposedly Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia and the self-proclaimed Kosovo]. Albanians are aware of this, and this awareness makes them stronger. And if we add the support of the US, and, moreover, Turkey, then what else can we expect,” the source stated.
During her visit to Pristina, Albanian Defense Minister Olta Xhacka said that Tirana supports the transformation of the Kosovo Security Forces into the Armed Forces. Albania is a NATO member state, and the army of Kosovo would, according to the suggested plan, fall under direct control of the North Atlantic Alliance, suggesting that Kosovo’s integration into Albania is already underway.

RELATED:

Ulterior motives for the Arab invasion of Bosnia
Pamela Geller
Dateline Sarajevo, Bosnia, Europe – 2017: The only Nobel Laureate from Yugoslavia, Ivo Andric, a Catholic Bosnian of either Serb or Croat heritage, once opined very deeply about the mental reality of Bosnia and Herzegovina region dividing Serbia and Croatia:
“Four religions live on this narrow hilly and scarce piece of land [Bosnia], each of which is exclusive and strictly separated from the rest. All live under one sky and the same country, but each of these four groups has the heart of their spiritual life far away, in the other world in Rome, in Moscow, in Constantinople, in Mecca, in Jerusalem, or God himself knows where – just not there where he was born and where will die. And each of them thinks that her goodness and her benefit are conditioned by the damage and the insinuation of each of the three other religions and that their progress can only be at its expense, and each of them has made the greatest virtue from intolerance, and everyone expects salvation from outside, and each from the opposite direction.”
In his work that earned him the Nobel Prize For Literature (The Bridge On The Drina), Andric described vividly the evils that the Moslem occupation of this rugged corner of Europe had wrought, including the method of khazouk, wherewith the Christi8ans were impaled at the stakes for daring to resist the Turks – who were the chief defenders of Islam during the later Middle Ages period. In his quote above (taken from his doctoral dissertation), Andric is describing the way in which the locals victimize themselves by placing themselves at the center of disputes and wars of the big powers with whom they selectively find common cause. And all this just to overcome a vast and congenital inferiority complex!
It is this mental deficiency, I believe, that has reared yet again its ugly head to act as a broker for a firesale of the Bosnian land that is given hand over fist to non-Slavic Moslem foreigners, the Arabs who come there on a jihad known to them only. Meanwhile, the provincial Bosnian salesmen bask in Arab oil’s silver currency that the Moslem Judas has brought to Sarajevo.
Bottom line: future terrorists are nesting in the Islamic incubator of Bosnia centered in Sarajevo for future use inside the EU – after the disastrous decision to bring over Bosnia into the EU will have been made by socialist European bureaucrats. The Arabs and their offspring expect to spring into Europe from Bosnia at some point in the future. It is all part and parcel of the islamization of Europe agenda.

ARABS ARE PURCHASING BOSNIAN LAND CHIEFLY FROM SERBS IN A MASSIVE UNDERTAKING FOR REASONS UNKNOWN

It is mainly land owned by citizens of Serbian nationality, while there are also individual cases that the land was sold by Bosniaks and Croats. The number of citizens from Arab countries visiting BiH (‘Bosnia and Herzegovina’) is growing year after year, and many of them buy and develop the real estate across the country, where numerous “Arab settlements” have already been built.
In the area of ​​Ilijas municipality in the vicinity of Sarajevo in the past few years, the Arabs have purchased between 3,000 and 3,500 dulums, or about 350 hectares of land.
The land price per square meter is therefore over 50% higher, which, according to the head of the municipality, Akif Fazlic, is a real problem for the local population who wants to buy land for the construction of residential houses.
– The positive side is that the budget of the municipality is higher. Based on real estate sales last year, we collected nearly EUR 1 million, and about 70 percent, or about 700,000 euros, was derived from Arab investors – Fazlic told Tanjug.
We also have income from paying rent and editing construction land, so it also increases our budget, he added.
Asked what is the interest of Arab investors to buy land in BIH, he says his assessment is that they want to spend a part of it on a short vacation, at most staying only for a few months, keeping in mind the arid climate in their home country in the Middle East.
He says there are individual cases among the residents of this municipality who complain about the arrival of Arabs, stating that “dilemmas” always exist.
“We all think about these dilemmas, though I’m always looking at the world’s processes, and they show that we have more and more migration and more open-minded real estate markets,” he said.
We will see that this process is positive and I hope that it will not have any other connotations, he says, adding that there are mechanisms if there are different connotations to stop them. It notes that the state should also play its part.
Fazlic explains that land in Sarajevo Canton is being purchased for shopping centers and hotels, and in the vicinity of the weekend settlements. One weekend settlement, says, was already built in the municipality of Ilijas.
– Many more locations have been purchased, and they are in the procedures of granting, issuing permits and all that is needed for these settlements, their investors are leading the process of construction and then selling on the real estate market and facilities – says Fazlic.
The residents of the Municipality of Ilijas have noticed a growing sale of real estate in the past five years, and they react differently. They note that they do not have problems with their new neighbors, but their growing presence is “enigmatic”. 
“What I know, it’s interesting, all of a sudden, we do not know why they are buying, are they so rich and investing in real estate? The real reason is not known. In our municipality they buy enough, settlements are built, villages with 30, 40 houses. They settle down, they buy apartments – says one of the residents.
University professor and analyst Enver Kazaz believes that much more Arabs go to tourist destinations across Europe than in BiH, and that some Arab countries invest significantly more, for example, in Serbia than in BiH.
– BIH is alive because it is traditionally emerging as a country where there is a danger of some kind of political Islam. Arab tourists who come here and leave money are simply the victims of such a stigmatization, and on the other hand, those who are rich and buy land through illegal firms need not be spared by BiH law – said Kazaz Tanjugu.
Nedžad Latić, editor of the portal “The Bosnia Times”, believes that the motive for those who buy real estate is the predisposition for citizenship, because they expect BiH to join the EU.
– This is roughly the motive of the majority who are buying, but it is most likely that they were wiped out and that they are some virtual projects. There is no substantial investigation yet, he told the Serbian newsagency “Tanjug”.
It also says that some of the projects have been implemented and that they are closed-type settlements. Bosnian media report that the massive purchase of property for Arab citizens was checked by security agencies in BiH at the end of last year.
An investigation conducted by the Foreign Affairs Service, which operates in the Ministry of Security of BiH, has determined that such transactions involve a large number of “phantom” companies that have minimal initial capital and invest large sums of money.
In December, 691 agencies were involved in dealing with such transactions, and even 499 were not found at the registered addresses. The official number of data shows that the number of Arab arrivals in BiH is increasing.
Referring to the Border Police data, Dnevni Avaz announced that 42,627 Arabs entered BiH in the last seven months, mostly from Emirates 19,887 and then from Kuwait 11,103.
Saudi Arabia’s citizens numbered 9,385, while Qatar accounted for 1,531 for the first seven months. At least they came from Jordan – 721.
According to the data of tourist boards, they are written by the Bosnian media, they stay on average five to ten days, while they do not have the number of rent or coupons to stay for up to a month.

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Enemedia Revealed

From here:




UPDATE: Names, activities of secretive progressive journalist group revealed

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A prominent CNN commentator, the top two political reporters for The Huffington Post, a Reuters reporter, the editor of The Nation magazine, a producer for Al Jazeera America television, a U.S. News & World Report columnist, and approximately two dozen Huffington Post contributors are among the more than 1,000 members of Gamechanger Salon.

Founded by leftwing activist Billy Wimsatt, the group is a secretive digital gathering of writers, opinion leaders, activists and political hands who share information, ideas and strategy via a closed Google group.

The group’s existence was discovered by Media Trackers through an open records request filed with a University of Wisconsin professor who happened to be a member of the network.

Sally Kohn, formerly a Fox News contributor, now works for CNN reliably echoing pro-Obama Administration talking points and championing leftwing ideas as a network commentator. Kohn is also a member of Gamechanger Salon, and e-mails show that she occasionally approached the group’s membership and asked them to promote her television appearances.

“I’m guest co-hosting CNN’s Crossfire tonight at 6:30pm EST, with fellow co-host Newt Gingrich. I would be grateful for folks (a) helping spread the word on Facebook, Twitter, etc to encourage people to tune in; and (b) tuning in and live tweeting during the show,” Kohn wrote to the group on January 14 of this year.

In another e-mail, Kohn pitched her TED talk about working as a liberal at Fox News. “I would be grateful for any shares and reactions. Here is a straightforward, sample tweet[:] Watch @sallykohn’s amazing TED talk on emotional correctness: on.ted.com/Kohn” she wrote. “Thanks for everything all of you do every day to make the world a better place!” she signed off.

Amanda Terkel, the “Senior Political Reporter and Politics Managing Editor at The Huffington Post,” is a member of Gamechanger Salon along with The Huffington Post’s Washington bureau chief, Ryan Grim.

In mid-July, Terkel and Grim jointly wrote a piece about a leftwing effort to push Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) to run for president. The pair of reporters heavily quoted Erica Sagrans, a fellow member of Gamechanger Salon and leading organizer of the “Ready For Warren” effort, and cited Billy Wimsatt’s support for the project. Wimsatt’s work as founder of Gamechanger Salon and the reporters’ own membership in the group, along with Sagrans’ membership, went unreported.
In a subsequent piece Terkel again reported on the effort to recruit Warren for a presidential bid, and a previous piece by Grim contrasted Warren with presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

A former New York Times freelance columnist who now works as an energy and commodities reporter for Thomson Reuters is also a member of Gamechanger Salon. Anna Louie Sussman is listed as an “investigative reporter and journalist” on the Gamechanger Salon membership list, and while her beat focuses on energy issues, she has also writes about “local and international human rights and social justice issues” according to her website.

Katrina vanden Heuvel is the editor and publisher of The Nation magazine, a prominent and well-known periodical of leftwing political and social thought. She is also a member of Gamechanger Salon and a regular opinion writer for the online edition of The Washington Post.

A late-July column for the Post by vanden Heuvel entitled Building a progressive alternative to ALEC” hit on a theme regularly mentioned on Gamechanger Salon: liberals must build an alternative to the American Legislative Exchange Council.

Lisa Graves, who leads the Madison, Wisconsin-based Center for Media and Democracy, is also a member of Gamechanger Salon, and – according to e-mails reviewed by Media Trackers – regularly promotes material developed by CMD to attack ALEC and the right-of-center lawmakers who tend to make up the majority of ALEC’s active legislative membership.

Vanden Heuvel suggested in her column that liberals support the efforts of the American Legislative and Issue Campaign Exchange – ALICE (a leftwing counterpart to ALEC) – and the Progressive States Network. Gamechanger Salon member Prof. Joel Rogers of the University of Wisconsin Madison founded ALICE. Vanden Heuvel in a 2012 column for the Post wrote about Rogers founding ALICE.

Not once does she appear to disclose her membership in Gamechanger Salon along with some of the very people she writes about.

Jordan Flaherty was, as of last year, a producer for Al Jazeera America television. He is also listed as a member of Gamechanger Salon and for a while he occasionally blogged for The Huffington Post.
In addition to working at the left-leaning American Sustainable Business Council, David Brodwin writes an online column for U.S. News & World Report. Brodwin is a member of Gamechanger Salon, and on July 14 he published a column arguing that small business owners support a minimum wage increase. Fascinatingly, the Obama Administration’s U.S. Department of Labor relies on Brodwin’s American Sustainable Business Council to argue that very point in a recent “fact-sheet” advocating for a minimum wage hike.

Dozens of members of the leftwing network have contributed columns to The Huffington Post, and others have written opinion pieces for several other publications. The full extent of the network’s activity and effectiveness at amplifying and coordinating left-leaning messaging campaigns has yet to be fully explored.

Authored by Brian Sikma

Friday, November 24, 2017

Migrants Do NOT Improve the Economy!


From The Ottawa Citizen, Monday, November 20, 2017 P.# A7.

IMMIGRATION POLICY NOT IMPROVING THE ECONOMY

Costs are far exceeding the benefits, writes James Bissett, former head of Canada's Immigration Service (1985-1990).

The Trudeau government's plan to bring in close to one million new immigrants within the next three years should be of serious concern to Canadians. Next year alone, the numbers are expected to reach 310,000 but to that total must be added approximately 900,000 temporary foreign workers and foreign students who will be living in Canada.

Since most of the newcomers will be settling in three of our major cities, the pressure on infrastructure and local services will be extreme.

Canada's current immigration policy is based on myths.

All of our political parties, most of the news media, big business interests, the banks and land developers favour large-scale immigration and justify this on the grounds that immigration helps our economy, strengthens the labour force and alleviates our aging problem.

In fact, only about 15 to 17 per cent of the annual flow consists of immigrants selected because they have skills, education and experience. Because of the pressure to get high numbers, few of these workers are seen or interviewed by visa officers.

The selection is done by a paper review.

The remainder of the movement is made up of the spouses and children accompanying the workers, family members sponsored by relatives in Canada, immigrants selected by the provinces (who do not have to meet federal selection criteria), refugees and humanitarian cases.

The truth is that the government has lost control of the immigration program by abandoning its traditional role of selecting our immigrants and controlling their numbers. Canadians have been brainwashed into believing we are doomed if we don't keep immigration levels high. We are also told that our immigration policies are acknowledged to be the envy of the world. These arguments are wrong.

There is no evidence that immigration is essential for economic growth. The 1985 MacDonald Royal Commission Report concluded that immigration did not contribute to economic growth and, in fact, caused a decline in per capita income and real wages.

In 1989, a two-year study by the Department of Health and Welfare supported the MacDonald report and stated there was no argument for increased population growth and that immigration was not the answer to the aging of the population.

In 1991, the Economic Council of Canada reached the same conclusion.

A more recent study by Prof. Herbert Grubel of Simon Fraser University and economist Patrick Grady found that in 2002 alone, the costs in services and benefits received by the 2.5 million immigrants between 1990 and 2002 exceeded the taxes paid by these immigrants by $23 billion.

It is not surprising that this study has received little media coverage in Canada.

The government has lost control of the immigration program.

Studies outside of Canada have come to the same conclusion about the economic value of immigration.

In Britain, a report by the House of Lords in 2008 warned that the government's plan to admit 190,000 immigrants per year would achieve little benefit and would seriously affect the availability of housing and the quality of public services. The report also criticized the government for misleading the people by justifying immigration levels when they provided no economic benefit, were not needed to fill labour shortages and did not help the state's pension fund.

Perhaps the most insidious argument still being advanced by government and other advocates of mass immigration is the belief that we need immigration to provide the workers needed to replace our aging population. This argument is obviously flawed if, as in Canada, the immigration movement has a similar age structure as the receiving country; then, immigration does not help the aging problem - indeed it may well exacerbate it.

In 2009, a study by the C.D. Howe Institute found that to offset our declining birth rate and maintain the ratio of five taxpayers to support the benefits of one pensioner until 2050, our immigration levels would have to reach 165.4 million. And in that single year, 2050, the annual movement would have to be seven million immigrants. The study recommended that raising the retirement age to 67 would be much more effective.

Sadly, we have allowed our political parties to use and exploit immigration for political purposes - with all parties competing for the ethnic vote by calling for increasing numbers. This is a cynical approach, patronizing to immigrants and damaging to the country. It is time for comprehensive reform.

James Bissett is former head of Canada's immigration service
(1985-1990).

Inmates Can Legally Blame Prison Code to Attack Guards

From The Ottawa Citizen, Saturday, November 18, 2017, P.#A3, and from here:


'Prison code' can form part of an inmate's defence: Federal Court

Andrew DuffyANDREW DUFFY

Published on: November 17, 2017; Updated: November 17, 2017 6:08 PM EST

ADJUSTCOMMENTPRINT
A Kingston inmate who says he joined a penitentiary revolt only because he feared violating the “prison code” has won the right to use those unwritten rules in his defence.
Mohamed Akhlaghi, 40, told a discipline hearing at Collins Bay Institution that he would have been stabbed if he didn’t abide by the code and follow other inmates on J Range, a maximum-security unit, as they staged a protest on the evening of Sept. 2, 2016.
That argument was rejected by the prison’s disciplinary court chairman, who said that recognizing duress as a defence would lead to “anarchy” inside Canada’s correctional system. 
Akhlaghi appealed, and in a recent ruling, Federal Court Justice Henry Brown upheld the inmate’s right to draw upon the prison code in answering discipline charges.
The discipline court was wrong, Brown said, to ignore Akhlaghi’s contention that he would be punished under the harsh tenets of the “prison code” if he didn’t join the protest. The code refers to the rough and informal set of rules that governs inmates’ daily lives.
“I have come to the conclusion that the independent chairperson acted unreasonably when he held that duress was not a defence in law,” Brown said in his judgment.
He ordered the case back to the prison discipline court for a new hearing.
Akhlaghi was among the inmates who refused a general order to return to their cells and “lock up” for a head count at 10:30 p.m. on Sept. 2. 
Normally, inmates retreat inside their cells when the announcement is made over the public address system. Air locks on their doors are then closed for the night.
On the evening of Sept. 2, however, the four guards preparing for lock up found all the inmates on J Range out of their cells. Doors were blocked open with shoes and footlockers.
Despite repeated orders to lock up, the inmates didn’t budge. The guards refused to enter the range because similar episodes in the past had proved to be a trap.
The standoff — it flowed from an inmate stabbing earlier in the day — lasted two hours before the inmates agreed to return to their cells. All of the participants were charged with disobeying a justifiable order.
In testimony at his disciplinary court hearing, Akhlaghi admitted that he failed to follow the order, but said “there would have been problems” had he been the only one to go into his cell.
“I couldn’t stay on that range,” he testified. “I couldn’t stay in Collins Bay maximum security. I would have been stabbed just like the other person.”
Akhlaghi, serving time for drug possession and other offences, had been transferred from medium to maximum security because of an earlier problem with other inmates. His sentence began in 2007. “I was already on, you know, sticky grounds to begin with,” he explained, “so I wasn’t going to be the only one to lock up to have more problems.”
His defence lawyer argued that Akhlaghi acted under duress since he faced the “implicit threat” of bodily harm or death under the prison code, which dictated that inmates stick together in a standoff with prison guards.
The chairperson said accepting such an argument at a disciplinary hearing would create “chaos” in the prison system.
Brown, however, said that duress is a complete defence in law — one recognized by both the Criminal Code and the Supreme Court of Canada.
To prove duress, a defendant must demonstrate a number of elements, including an explicit or implied threat of bodily harm, a reasonable belief the threat would be carried out, and an inability to escape the situation.
Lisa Kerr, assistant professor of law at Queen’s University, said the case sends a clear message to prison officials that they must apply the law rather than their own ideas. 
“In our legal system, there’s a fundamental principle that you cannot hold someone responsible for actions that were not morally voluntary: We only hold people responsible if they did something when they could have reasonably chosen otherwise,” Kerr said.
“Inmates are entitled to make that kind of argument too. In fact, the defence of duress is likely more important in the prison context given the pressures that inmates often face.”
She did not believe the decision would lead to chaos inside the correctional system.

To Renew Law Licenses, Ontario Lawyers Now Required to be Racist Communists

From The Ottawa Citizen, Friday November 24, 2017, P.#A11, and from here:

Lawyers face their own fight on free speech

We can't defend our clients if we don't defend ourselves, argues Jay Cameron

Cameron: Ontario lawyers now face their own free-speech battle

Jay CameronJAY CAMERON
Published on: November 23, 2017 | Last Updated: November 23, 2017 12:32 PM EST

Apparently, it’s no longer enough for lawyers in Ontario to know the law and their ethical obligations. Starting this year, the Law Society of Upper Canada requires every lawyer in the province to “create and abide by an individual Statement of Principles that acknowledges (their) obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally” – and to do so as part of their 2017 Annual Statement.
The Annual Statement is a licensing requirement.
Many lawyers have publicly rebelled at the Law Society’s attempts to coerce both their speech and their behaviour. And given the current debate about free speech in our universities, the measure bears examination.
In following the story, I reviewed the Law Society’s Barrister’s Oath (bylaw 4, section 21). The language is fairly typical, including pledges to act ethically, not promote lawsuits on frivolous pretences, conduct all cases faithfully, etc. One line of the oath stood out to me, however: “I shall champion the rule of law and safeguard the rights and freedoms of all persons.” 
It would certainly seem that the Law Society cannot require lawyers to waive their constitutional rights to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression by signing a “personal” inclusivity statement against their will, and at the same time require them to take a solemn oath to “champion the rule of law” (what about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?) or “safeguard the rights and freedoms of all persons” (what about the rights and freedoms of lawyers?). 
The statement creates a new paradigm, and a new work reality for every lawyer, and it would seem that the Lawyer’s Oath needs to be re-written, and re-sworn by every lawyer to reflect new obligations. The year 2017 is nearly over, and the annual statements are due soon. Any lawyer who intends to conform under duress and create an “individual” statement, should also be willing to swear to the following: 
1. I pledge to renounce my own ideas (which I suddenly realize are bad, now that my licence may be at stake) and embrace those of the Law Society (which I never realized were so good until I realized I may have a hard time feeding my family if I don’t agree with them); 
2. I pledge to embrace insincerity, and say things I don’t mean, and mean things I don’t say, and do so in a manner that sounds convincing and compelling to all around me;
3. I pledge to promptly call the practice adviser if I go off-script in regard to the promotion of inclusivity, or if I lose the leaflets that say what I’m supposed to think that is;
4. I pledge to seek counselling if I begin to suffer depression from mouthing platitudes that aren’t mine – but solemnly recognize and agree that I would rather eat and be a hypocrite than not eat at all; 
5. I pledge to retweet whatever the Law Society of Upper Canada tweets within eight hours (three hours if it has to do with inclusivity), and pledge to neither fondly remember nor yearn for any of my former freedoms; they are shadows that I have already forgotten. 
The coerced signing away of one’s rights and individuality as a condition of practising law in Ontario is profound. Alexis de Tocqueville famously warned us about the tyranny of the majority, and its obsession not with liberty, but with the god of equality that it pursues above all else. Coerced worship of the idol is a sign of the death of a “free and democratic society,” which the charter establishes as Canada’s ideal.  
The current oath includes a pledge to uphold the freedoms of all persons. That includes lawyers. It’s time for every lawyer in Ontario to consider carefully this: If they can’t determine to stand for their own rights, how will they stand for anyone else’s?
Calgary lawyer Jay Cameron is Litigation Manager with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (www.jccf.ca). Twitter: @Juriscameron

UPDATE!

From P.NP4 of the Ottawa Citizen, Saturday, December 2,  2017, and from here

Ontario lawyers must say they promote equality, or else after law society rejects exemption for conscientious objectors

An Ottawa lawyer compared the controversial statement of principles to Bart Simpson writing 'I will not be a bad boy again' on the blackboard — an empty gesture

Free speech threatened by new rules, lawyers say

The Law Society of Upper Canada office in Toronto. Jack Boland/Postmedia/File
Lawyers and paralegals in Ontario will be required to adopt and abide by a controversial statement of principles in order to remain licensed by the Law Society of Upper Canada.
The rule was officially adopted late last year, one of many reforms to address systemic racism in the province’s legal profession. But it has not yet been enforced, and a recent motion sought to allow members to abstain from making the statement on grounds of conscience or faith.
After a heated and protracted debate at the law society’s governing convocation, this motion failed at midday Friday, meaning the rule is valid and will be enforced.
The official tally was not immediately available, but the vote was not overwhelmingly against. Many expressed support for the exemption for conscientious objectors, proposed by prominent Toronto lawyer Joe Groia.
Friday’s debate was not mainly about the content of the statement. Benchers on all sides repeatedly declared that support for diversity and equality was a fundamental value universally shared in the legal community. The objection was on the requirement to declare one’s obligation to promote these values, which Groia described as compelled speech.
Even if someone means it, they should not be forced to say it, he argued. If they do not mean it, the statement is hollow and false. Groia said the law society should “find other and better ways to advance those goals” of equality and diversity.
One bencher compared it to a U.S. case about forcing children to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, which was rejected as a violation of free speech.
The reasons offered in support of Groia’s failed motion were varied.
Some were practical, such as the inevitable litigation when a lawyer decides to violate this rule and challenge it in court. This will come after a string of other cases that the LSUC has fought in court, at no small expense.
Some were procedural, pointing out that the Law Society first said the content would not be formally dictated, but then offered a number of templates without being clear on what other versions might be acceptable.
Groia himself questioned whether the mandatory statement would even do anything to achieve or promote the goals of equality and inclusion.
“What do we gain by offending so many men and women of conscience and faith?” he said. “Why do we stubbornly refuse to fix the mess we have created?”
One of the most striking defences of Groia’s motion came from bencher Anne Vespry, an Ottawa lawyer who compared the statement to Bart Simpson writing “I will not be a bad boy again” on the blackboard — an empty gesture.
She argued that, while it is possible some objectors to the statement are trying to conceal their own prejudice, many supporters are “wrapping themselves in the flag of equality and diversity” as a way to bully others into submission. She said she used to think disagreement was always the product of inadequate evidence, misunderstanding, poor application of rules, wilful blindness, or malice. But she has come to realize that conscience and faith can lead people of good will to vastly different perspectives that are not captured by simple rules.
She described herself as brown, biologicaly female, gender butch, queer, with a learning disability, mild physical disabilities depending on what the situation requires, and mild to moderate post traumatic stress disorder. She also used to work for Glad Day Bookshop, which sells literature aimed at a queer audience and has been at the centre of many legal fights over obscenity laws and free expression.
“I believe in free speech. I believe that controlling speech is a bad thing. When someone else controls our dialogue, people suffer,” she said. “Government censorship, government control of language killed people. People died because they did not get access to information.”
“Ambiguity is antithetical to clarity,” she said, and the statement of principles is “classically ambiguous language,” which can be interpreted “to mean kind of nothing at all.”
Before the vote, she said the failure of the motion would mean she will “look for a new career.”
Bencher Raj Anand observed that the stars have to align perfectly in order to achieve even the most modest reforms against systemic racism, and this one should not be derailed because some people see it as an affront to their rights.
“Diversity and inclusion is not a zero sum game,” he said.
Bencher Sandra Nishikawa, counsel at the Ontario Human Rights Commission, who voted against the motion, said the debate had become academic. She said it elevates the abstract value of free speech over the real concerns of real marginalized people.
“We are not in a face saving exercise here,” she said. “Equality is fundamental to everything we do.”