Conservatives: Running For Opposition

It seems to me that the HarperCon$ have lost sight of what it means to govern, and have digressed into their infantile state of being opposition to the Federal Liberals.

Con$ Attack Ads #20,542.

They spend more time trying to slag the Liberals than they do actually governing - and when they attempt to govern, we things like L'Affaire Bernier where we find out that our Foreign Affairs Minister is thinking with the wrong head!

If they want to play at being opposition while they are in government, perhaps we should oblige them by slamming them to third party status or lower in the next election.

I'll give you a hint, Mr. Harper, there's a country here that needs to be run like it means something - so far, all we've had out of your government is chest-thumping, ego stroking and ineptitude.

L'Affaire Bernier - Couillard: More Gift Giving

It seems that Ms. Couillard gets around Conservative party circles rather more than one might expect.

"Mr. Bernard Côté failed to inform me that while he was in a personal relationship with Julie Couillard, at the same time she was also vying for government business for Kevlar and raised it with Mr. Côté," he said. "Mr. Côté should have recused himself of having any dealings with the matter at hand, which he unfortunately didn't."

I'm beginning to think that Ms. Couillard makes it clear that the Con$ need to start thinking with their grey matter...rather than hormone-flushed instinct.

Bom! Bom! Go The Drums Of War

Gee - Bush II couldn't be any more transparent about stirring up fear of the evil Iran threat in time for this year's presidential elections, could he?

US President George W Bush says he wants to pursue diplomacy to deal with Iran's controversial nuclear programme, but "all options are on the table".

Mr Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel said further sanctions against Iran were possible.

"The first choice is to solve it diplomatically and that's exactly what we're doing," Mr Bush said.

He was speaking after talks in Germany, on the latest leg of what is likely to be his last tour of Europe.

Uh huh...coming from a man whose idea of diplomacy involves holding the trigger of a gun to the other party's head, I don't think that he's really trying that hard. Similar noises were made about Iraq a few years ago too.

I'm guessing that the current focus on Iran has more to do with sagging Republican fortunes in the US than it does anything else. The Rove formula for electoral success tends to require that the population be scared of something - preferably a remote and easily demonized adversary - it distracts the masses from what's happening at home.

The CBC Running Behind The Blogs?

Wow - the CBC only just posted their story about the Boissoin remedy decision - and they've dated it June 6.

Go read some of the reader comments - there's a lot of them, but a few gems in the midst of it all.

Also, I see that Mr. Boissoin has published his "response" to the decision on his website. How mature of you, Mr. Boissoin.

So, Just What Do They Do In The Washrooms?

[Update 11/06/08]:
I see a few of the more intelligent and self-aware side of the world are pointing out the stupidity of the religious zealots. Well done!
[/Update]

I'm becoming more and more amused by the howls of outrage coming from "Christians" over transgender equality laws, and in particular the whole bathrooms issue.

Consider the following claims:

The rationale for Senate Bill 200 is that transgenders should be able to use the restroom they feel most comfortable using. Apparently, it is not important if others feel uncomfortable having their privacy violated every time they use public facilities.

The lack of privacy is not the only problem. Nobody is going to ask a man if he is trangendered before allowing him into the ladies’ room. This means any man—including a child molester—could simply follow a little girl into the privacy of a public restroom. And, if a man decided to expose himself to a young girl there, who is she going to complain to? After all, restrooms, by definition, are places where one exposes the private parts of one’s body.

Now, this is so laughably stupid it almost makes the Simpsons look like complex humour.

I'm going to take this silliness apart one claim at a time:

1. This means any man—including a child molester—could simply follow a little girl into the privacy of a public restroom.

The inference here is that a MTF transsexual is likely to be a child molester. This claim is ridiculous to begin with, as it confuses gender identity with sexual identity. Lastly, contrary to the delusions of many of these people, such laws will not result in a sudden interest in cross-dressing by child molesters. If that was going to happen, it would have been happening before.

2. others feel uncomfortable having their privacy violated

Okay, washrooms, are places with a certain degree of privacy implied in them. Absolutely true. But consider the scenarios involved.

A MTF (Male to Female) transsexual enters the ladies washroom. She is going to find a stall, close the door and do her business - same as any other woman using the washroom. Invasion of privacy? None. It's not like she's going to be peering in the other stalls any more than other women do. It's a washroom, not a freaking peep show for goodness' sake! (and women often "critique" other women far more thoroughly than men do to men - meaning for the MTF that they are probably going to be all the more cautious about trying to fit into the protocol for using the ladies' room.

In the second possible scenario, a FTM (Female to Male) transsexual enters the men's room. Unless he has had rather expensive phalloplasty, he's going to be using a stall. Again, like most people, he's going to enter, do his business and leave.

Additionally, the writer is ignoring the "don't look, don't see" protocol in men's washrooms and locker rooms. Men don't walk around with it all "hanging out", and other men in the room will work awfully hard NOT to look.

3. After all, restrooms, by definition, are places where one exposes the private parts of one’s body.

Really? What washrooms does the writer go to? The public washrooms I'm used to tend to have doors on the stalls for a reason, and the only "shared" place is the sinks and mirrors - not usually where anything is exposed at all.

4. And, if a man decided to expose himself to a young girl there, who is she going to complain to?

The police, I should think - I believe most jurisdictions have laws on the books about 'indecent exposure'. That would be inappropriate behaviour from an adult of any gender towards a child. Equality and non-discrimination laws do not change the status of such things at all.

The fetid imaginings of the writer of that article suggest that he needs some time with a psychotherapist - it's getting pretty clear that he doesn't know what he's talking about, and worse he's clearly got some pretty strange ideas about what goes on in public bathrooms.

Appalling as this law is, it gets worse. Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family points out, in the Denver Post, that the law also threatens religious liberty: Colorado’s “public accommodations” law includes not only hotels and restaurants, but also any small or home-based business that offers “goods or services” to the public.

Wait a second here - you are complaining because it takes away your "right" to deny people service based on who they are? Hmmm...how fascinating. And just how would these same idiots feel if they walked into a business that refused to serve them because they were Christian, or because of their race? I'm not feeling too sympathetic to someone whining because their sense of entitlement is being infringed upon because they want to deny someone else access to a place to pee! (and just how small a person are you if you would deny another human being the right pee in peace?)

Oh yes, and just to keep it straight stories like this happen semi-frequently - apparently not fitting into someone else's sense of "male" or "female" is good enough reason to get removed from a washroom - regardless of your gender.

Apparently Ezra Has Forgotten Some History

Somewhere along the way, Ezra has either forgotten or horrendously misinterpreted some significant chapters in human history. Especially in his latest round of whining about human rights commissions.

He's picked up on the remedy decision in the Boissoin affair that I commented on back here.

Unsurprisingly, he's not impressed. After all, Dr. Lund is merely "the town scold" who had no business complaining:

No-one was hurt. The complainant was an officious intermeddler, a busybody, the town scold, an anti-Christian activist named Darren Lund who had an axe to grind, and Andreachuk gave it to him.

That's right Ezra, resort immediately to the refuge of those who have no real merit to their argument and attack the person. Brilliant strategy there - after all, what could Mr. Lund's reasons for objecting possibly be - he was only a high school teacher living in Red Deer at the time? Right? Oh wait, Mr. Lund had already seen the ugly side of bigotry and discrimination in the white supremacist movement that Terry Long and Jim Keegstra were part of.

Mr. Lund saw something he believed was egregiously wrong and acted on it.

So a busybody with no standing spends time filing complaints -- and gets a tax-free reward for doing so. Oh -- and for his "suffering". Not suffering at the hands of Rev. Boission, but "as a result of his complaint".

Hmmm...so death threats are not suffering? Putting up with a lawsuit that Mr. Levant filed on Boissoin's behalf is not harrassment. Got it. In Ezra's pithy little world, he should be absolutely free to harass and harangue anyone he pleases without being held accountable - unless of course some gets injured physically.

Perhaps Mr. Levant would like to review the myriad ways in the 20th Century that "mere words" have been used to provoke genocide on grand scales. How broad generalizations against identifiable groups can be used to tar an entire population, regardless of their actual status? From the 1930s onwards, the world is filled with examples - whether we choose to talk about Adolf Hitler's propaganda campaigns, Stalin, McArthy or the tribal genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s. Pick one - any one - they are amazingly vicious and broad in their impact, and every single one of them spawned from the words of a handful of loudmouthed brutes who believed they had some god-given right to treat others as lesser beings for their own ends.

The fact that Mr. Lund himself is not gay doesn't mean that he should not speak out against bigotry when he sees it. It is all of our responsibility in a free society to speak out when we see someone like Boissoin screaming out for violence.

Ezra claims "nobody was hurt" - well, that's a matter of opinion. Within two weeks of Boissoin's letter, a gay youth in Red Deer was severely beaten - while the furor was still raging in the Red Deer Advocate's letters section. I know of quite a few GLBT people who lived in Red Deer at the time who moved away quite specifically because that letter made them feel that their safety was jeopardized. Nobody was hurt? Well, only if the youth who was beaten is "nobody", only if those who chose to leave homes, family and careers in the area because they feared for their own safety are "nobody".

The broader society of Red Deer was hurt by that letter because it drove people away from Red Deer - people who are otherwise law abiding, peaceful citizens. You might say "good riddance", Ezra, but the fact is that letter had an impact far beyond physical harm. Beatings and physical violence leave scars that you can see. Verbal and written violence leaves a different kind of scar that you cannot see, but is just as real.

As I have said before, rights exist in a tension with the various players involved. Boissoin's right to express his religiously held views exists in a state of tension with the rights of others to live their lives without being subjected to arbitrary and illegal discrimination. There is no "single" victim in the case of Boissoin's letter because that letter tarred an entire population segment without good reason.

Although Boissoin likes to claim that he wrote the letter from a "religious viewpoint", I question that. His words do not substantiate such a claim. More recently, his website attempts to cite bits and pieces of scripture that he believes justify his position, but the letter itself does not couch itself in the terms of anything even vaguely religious. If it weren't for the "Reverend" on the signature tag, I imagine few would have any idea that it was written by someone of supposedly "Christian" beliefs.

Right On Schedule...

As the US Presidential race moves out of the nominations process and shifts into active campaigning, we see the latest Rethuglican war drum being beaten.

Does anyone else find it suspicious that the first thing that hits the news as the Democrat nomination cycle wraps up is Iran's nuclear program?

Last time this came bubbling up was 2006 - while George II was busy trying to get re-elected. Okay, so it's Israel making the threats - it's not as if Israeli leadership's connections to the Rethuglicans are news or surprising.

Is Iran a military threat? Perhaps; but I'm not about to assume that it is without some credible evidence. The world has been misled into two wars in the Middle East already - starting a third war in Iran would be foolish indeed. Not to mention likely to create an atmosphere of hostility. Right now, I'm inclined to suspect that the Iran drum is being beat again to give the Rethuglicans a "fear card" to play in the coming election.