Cdn-Firearms Digest Monday, November 30 2009 Volume 13 : Number 589 In this issue: Re: Everything she could Columns: Liberty culture first, safe streets next, Parts I & II This is your brain on political correctness Sarah Palin for the White House? *NFR* Re: Canadian State-sponsored Terror Re: Canadian State-sponsored Terror CBC - N.S. women protest to keep gun registry HILL TIMES: Political fur flies over Tories' taxpayer- ...... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:38:21 -0400 From: "M.J. Ackermann, MD" Subject: Re: Everything she could To: letters@thecitizen.canwest.com CC: mhurley@thecitizen.canwest.com Brenda Van Leyen most definitely did not do everything she could have to stop her ex-boyfriend from attacking her: She did not train or equip for effective immediate self defense. Unfortunately in Canada the politics of interpersonal violence has been taken over by professional victims groups who have us all convinced that a woman raped and stabbed to death is morally superior to one who stops the assault before it happens by going armed. They would have us believe that we are more civilized when we accept the violence against our mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters than if we were to encourage them to repel such violence as it occurs. These groups can pontificate all they want but the simple fact remains that when seconds count and her life hangs in the balance, a woman must wait minutes for the police to show up. For many, the rest of their lives passes while they are connected to the 911 system waiting for someone else to bring a defensive sidearm to their aid. When the police do get there they do an excellent job of collecting evidence from the victim's corpse to take to trial - just to see the court system give her killer five to ten years of actual incarceration. Why personal self defense isn't the number one women's rights issue is something I think women should be asking themselves and those who purport to represent their interests. - -- M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike) Rural Family Physician, Box 13, 120 Cameron Rd. Sherbrooke, NS Canada B0J 3C0 902-522-2172 mikeack@ns.sympatico.ca "Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst". ** Please always use BCC and erase appended address lists when forwarding or sending to groups ** ------------------------------ Date: Sun, November 29, 2009 5:00 pm From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: Columns: Liberty culture first, safe streets next, Parts I & II Safer Streets 101: Liberty culture first, safe streets next, Part I November 28, 1:57 PM - LA Gun Rights Examiner, John Longenecker http://www.examiner.com/x-2323-LA-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d28-Safer-Streets-101-Liberty-culture-first-safe-streets-next Safer Streets 101: Liberty culture first, safe streets next, Part II. November 29, 11:02 AM - LA Gun Rights Examiner, John Longenecker http://www.examiner.com/x-2323-LA-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d29-Safer-Streets-101-Liberty-culture-first-safe-streets-next-Part-II ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:33:17 -0600 From: Edward Hudson Subject: This is your brain on political correctness This is your brain on political correctness Major Nidal Hasan had an enabler All those red flags but no one did anything. Political correctness took the lives of 14 people. by Mark Steyn Thursday, 26 November 2009 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/26/major-nidal-hasan-had-an-enabler/ Ever since this magazine attracted the attention of Canada’s “human rights” regime, defenders of the system have clung to a familiar argument. In a letter to Maclean’s, Jennifer Lynch, Q.C., Canada’s chief censor, put it this way: “Steyn would have us believe that words, however hateful, should be given free rein. History has shown us that hateful words sometimes lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes. That is why Canada and most other democracies have enacted legislation to place reasonable limits on the expression of hatred.” “Hateful words” can lead to “unspeakable crimes.” The problem with this line is that it’s ahistorical twaddle, as I’ve pointed out. Yet still it comes up. It did last month, during my testimony to the House of Commons justice committee, when an opposition MP mused on whether it wouldn’t have been better to prohibit the publication of Mein Kampf. “That analysis sounds as if it ought to be right,” I replied. “But the problem with it is that the Weimar Republic—Germany for the 12 years before the Nazi party came to power—had its own version of Section 13 and equivalent laws. It was very much a kind of proto-Canada in its hate speech laws. The Nazi party had 200 prosecutions brought against it for anti-Semitic speech. At one point the state of Bavaria issued an order banning Hitler from giving public speeches.” And a fat lot of good it all did. But still the old refrain echoes through the corridors of power: vigorous honest free speech will lead to mass murder unless we subject it to “reasonable limits.” Actually, the opposite is true: a constrained and regulated culture policed by politically correct enforcers leads to slaughter. I’m not being speculative here, as Commissar Lynch is about my murderous prose style. It’s already happened, just a couple of weeks back. Thirteen men and women plus an unborn baby were gunned down at Fort Hood by a major in the U.S. Army. Nidal Hasan was the perpetrator, but political correctness was his enabler, every step of the way. In the days that followed, the near parodically absurd revelations piled up like an overripe satire, but a two-panel cartoon at the Toronto blogger Scaramouche’s website provided the pithiest distillation: “This is your brain. This is your brain on political correctness”—a small and shrivelled thing. Major Hasan couldn’t have been more straightforward about who and what he was. An army psychiatrist, he put “SoA”—i.e., “Soldier of Allah”—on his business card. At the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, he was reprimanded for trying to persuade patients to convert to Islam and fellow pupils objected to his constant “anti- American propaganda,” but, as the Associated Press reported, “a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint.” This is your brain on political correctness. As the writer Barry Rubin pointed out, Major Hasan was the first mass murderer in U.S. history to give a PowerPoint presentation outlining the rationale for the crime he was about to commit. And he gave the presentation to a roomful of fellow army psychiatrists and doctors. Some of whom glanced queasily at their colleagues, but none of whom actually spoke up. And, when the question of whether then-Captain Hasan was, in fact, “psychotic,” the policy committee at Walter Reed Army Medical Center worried “how would it look if we kick out one of the few Muslim residents.” This is your brain on political correctness. So instead he got promoted to major and shipped to Fort Hood. And barely had he got to Texas when he started making idle chit-chat praising the jihadist murderer of two soldiers outside a recruitment centre in Little Rock. “This is what Muslims should do, stand up to the aggressors,” Major Hasan told his superior officer, Colonel Terry Lee. “People should strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square.” In less enlightened times, Colonel Lee would have concluded that, being in favour of the murder of his comrades, Major Hasan was objectively on the side of the enemy. But instead he merely cautioned the major against saying things that might give people the wrong impression. Which is to say, the right impression. This is your brain on political correctness. “You need to lock it up, major,” advised the colonel. But, of course, he didn’t. He could pretty much say what he wanted— infidels should have their throats cut, for example. Meanwhile, the only ones who felt any “need to lock it up” were his fellow psychiatrists, his patients, his teachers at the Uniformed Services University, officials at Walter Reed, and the brass at Fort Hood. So they locked it up for years, and now 14 people are dead. And even when the slaughter had happened, much of the media found it easier to slander both the U.S. military and the general populace than to confront the evidence. The Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano professed to be most worried about an “anti-Muslim backlash” from the knuckledragging bozo citizenry she has the forlorn task of attempting to hold in check. This is the Jennifer Lynch argument: the priority is always some hypothetical atrocity waiting to happen, no matter how many times we ace that test: there was no “anti- Muslim backlash” after 3,000 corpses on Sept. 11, or after Bali, Madrid or London. Muslims have certainly been murdered in New York and London but by their co-religionists on 9/11 and 7/7 rather than by any “Islamophobes.” As for the military, well, obviously, they’re a bunch of Bush-scarred psychos who could snap at any moment. Newsweek called the mass murder “A Symptom of a Military on the Brink”: “A psychiatrist who was set to deploy to Iraq at the end of the month, Hasan reportedly opened fire around the Fort Hood Readiness Center,” wrote Andrew Bast. “It comes at a time when the stress of combat has affected so many soldiers individually that it makes it increasingly difficult for the military as a whole to deploy for wars abroad.” No mention of the words “Islam” or “Muslim,” but Mr. Bast was concerned to “get at the root causes of soldier stresses.” As in post-traumatic stress disorder. Operative word “post”: you get it after you’ve been in combat. Major Hasan had never been in combat. Until Nov. 5, PTSD was something you got when you returned from battle overseas and manifested itself in sleeplessness, nightmares, or, in extreme circumstances, suicide. After Nov. 5, PTSD was apparently spread by shaking hands and manifested itself in gunning down large numbers of people while yelling “Allahu akbar!” This is your brain on political correctness. Major Hasan sent fortnightly emails to Anwar al-Awlaki, sometime spiritual adviser to both the Fort Hood shooter and three of the 9/11 terrorists and an imam so radical he’s banned from Britain, a land with an otherwise all but boundless tolerance for radical imams. In his leisure hours, he adopted the Pushtun dress of those Arabs who journeyed to Afghanistan to sign up with Osama. And eventually the sheer accumulation of such revelations rendered the PTSD thesis so absurd that even Frank Rich of the New York Times was willing to muse tentatively on whether the major’s years of jihadist exhibitionism were “ignored because of political correctness, bureaucratic dysfunction, sheer incompetence or some hybrid thereof.” My italics, but I’m impressed it made the list. Oh, well. If U.S. military personnel make insufficiently appealing victims, consider the three sisters and an “aunt” drowned in their car in the Rideau Canal in Kingston in what a remarkably uncurious media reported as a midnight driving lesson gone wrong. And even when their parents were arrested, there was little appetite to discuss “honour killing.” When 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez was strangled, allegedly by her father with her brother’s help, for refusing to wear a hijab, Citytv ran a lunchtime call-in poll: “Do you think society discriminates against women who wear a hijab?” This is your brain on political correctness: dead. But not as dead as poor Aqsa Parvez and the ever swelling ranks of Western “honour killing” victims. Groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (with its Potemkin membership but lots of foreign funding) want a world where Islam is beyond discussion—where “red flags” are ignored because to do anything about them would risk career-ruining accusations of “Islamophobia,” or six months of “sensitivity training,” or a complaint to the “human rights” commission where Jennifer Lynch’s enforcers will spay you into a docile eunuch of the PC state. Pace Commissar Lynch, words “should be given free rein,” because they are the first and least worst line of defence in a free society. Instead, asked “Who ya gonna believe—The Celebrate Diversity Handbook or your lyin’ eyes?”, more and more of us plump for the former, if only for a quiet life. Commissar Lynch has it exactly backwards: it’s the craven submission to political correctness, the willingness to leave your marbles with the Diversity Café hat-check girl, that leads to death—real death, with real corpses, from Texas to Ontario. And when the guy’s on the table firing wildly and screaming “Allahu akbar!”, the PC enforcers won’t be there for you. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:49:09 -0500 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Sarah Palin for the White House? *NFR* [Completely NFR moderator except for many, Palin was once the Great White hope. It serves to point out how absurd and irrelevant politics is becoming. Enough, enough Sarah and tribe. Go away, 'quietly'. The most powerful Nation in the World reduced to political satire]. Levi Johnston, Put Your Pants On Seriously, Levi, put on your pants. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/11/25/levi-johnston-put-your-pants-on/?icid=main|netscape|dl8|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicsdaily.com%2F2009%2F11%2F25%2Flevi-johnston-put-your-pants-on%2F You posed nude. Things got out of hand. You got in over your head, got bad advice, let the attention flatter you. You were tempted by the easy money and the first-class travel, I understand. I'm sure it's difficult for an unemployed and uneducated young man to resist such enticing persuasion. That said, you need to get out of the shower and clean up your act. It's fine to have an appetite for publicity, but that's no reason to be infamous. There can be no good end to this course you've taken. You are the Fleshbot awardee of an "11-inch dildo made of silver." The porn magazine that hired you has over 200 "arty," unclothed images of you for sale, several accessorized by a hockey stick. They will be releasing them to the public in a slow dribble. And: > Levi Johnston's mother gets 3 years in drug case Add husband - Todd 'First Dude' Palin; suspect winner of one of the Iron Dog Gold Rush Classic snowmobile races. (I don't think we'll see Laura Teskey-Harper bungee jumping off the Bloukrans Bridge in South Africa). http://www.faceadrenalin.com/bloukransbridge.html Take a look at this: How Sarah Palin Might Win The White House http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/24/how-sarah-palin-might-win_n_368592.html Sarah Palin ‘Going Rogue’ to the White House? Polls say no. With her book, 'Going Rogue,' released today, Sarah Palin is red meat to the far right. But Palin's poll numbers have slid significantly since she quit as Alaska governor. http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/11/17/sarah-palin-going-rogue-to-the-white-house-polls-say-no/ Sarah Palin presidency previewed on satirical website A website is offering a tounge-in-cheek glimpse inside the White House under a future Sarah Palin presidency. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/sarah-palin/3209842/Sarah-Palin-presidency-previewed-on-satirical-website.html Visitors to palinaspresident.com are presented with an interactive picture of Mrs Palin sat at the presidential desk in the Oval Office, surrounded by motifs of her campaign with Senator John McCain. Among other memorabilia, a sash emblazoned with "Miss Wasalia" hangs on the wall, recalling pictures of Mrs Palin's victory in her hometown beauty contest in 1984 that surfaced in US media. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:41:48 -0500 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Re: Canadian State-sponsored Terror Peter, in commenting on another post said: > Do I understand the legal difference > between a 'right' and a 'privilege'? Yes. So what? > > I do not want to lose my firearms. Nor do I want to lose my 12(6) and > 12(5) grandfather status (privilege). It has seemed apparent via other non-responses to reasoned posts that some folks have little sympathy for owners who possess and transport restricted and especially prohibited arms - and who face the daily scrutiny of their CFOs. > Sad to say, we lost the 'right' to firearm possession and embraced its > 'privilege' in 1995 with Bill C-68. Methinks the slippery slope started in 1934 and became a stark reality in 1977 with C-51 and then by 1979(?) when we were 'required' to have a FACertificate to acquire, possess and transport in varying degrees, various firearms.. > I've personally felt the sting of the fascists storm troopers.....ooops, > there I go again, excuse me, I mean police. It cost me a kings ransom to > win ....if you can call losing your savings, your health and God know > what else, winning. I hope at some time you might 'share' your experience so that we may all learn from your encounter with the Peel-less poelease. Reference: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:27:29 -0700 From: "Dewey" Subject: Re: Canadian State-sponsored Terror - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Jasper" Subject: Re: Canadian State-sponsored Terror > Peter, in commenting on another post said: > >> Do I understand the legal difference >> between a 'right' and a 'privilege'? Yes. So what? >> I do not want to lose my firearms. Nor do I want to lose my 12(6) and >> 12(5) grandfather status (privilege). > > It has seemed apparent via other non-responses to reasoned posts that > some folks have little sympathy for owners who possess and transport > restricted and especially prohibited arms - and who face the daily > scrutiny of their CFOs. > >> Sad to say, we lost the 'right' to firearm possession and embraced its >> 'privilege' in 1995 with Bill C-68. > > Methinks the slippery slope started in 1934 and became a stark reality > in 1977 with C-51 and then by 1979(?) when we were 'required' to have a > FACertificate to acquire, possess and transport in varying degrees, > various firearms.. > >> I've personally felt the sting of the fascists storm troopers.....ooops, >> there I go again, excuse me, I mean police. It cost me a kings ransom to >> win ....if you can call losing your savings, your health and God know >> what else, winning. > > I hope at some time you might 'share' your experience so that we may all > learn from your encounter with the Peel-less poelease. > > Reference: > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles ------------------------------ Date: Mon, November 30, 2009 9:31 am From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: CBC - N.S. women protest to keep gun registry CBC NEWS - NOVEMBER 29, 2009 N.S. women protest to keep gun registry http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2009/11/29/ns-gun-registry-demons tration.html Members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada are hoping a vigil in Fall River, N.S., over the weekend will help keep Canada's long-gun registry alive. About 25 women demonstrated in front of the office of Peter Stoffer, NDP MP for Sackville-Eastern Shore, on Saturday night. They chanted "We will not be silent," and took turns shoving their protest placards through Stoffer's mail slot. Stoffer, who was not present, is one of 18 Liberal and NDP MPs who recently voted to abolish the gun registry. "We're hoping that we're going to be able to overturn those individuals to reconsider and hopefully, if we're able to overturn their position, we'll be able to keep the gun registry," said Jeannie Baldwin, regional vice-president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. The union, which represents employees who administer the registry and organized the demonstration, contends the registry has helped reduce domestic gun violence against women by 50 per cent and should not be scrapped. "Dangerous people are refused their guns, which is what we should be doing. So yes, she does tell me a lot about the good that's coming out of it," said Anne Fagan-Wood, whose sister works on the registry. Lori Walton, organizer of an upcoming candlelight vigil in Halifax for the victims of the Montreal Massacre, agrees. "To think that a woman's life might be worth less than being able to bag a deer easily is unreal and it's a sad state of affairs that we're in this year marking the 20th anniversary of the Montreal massacre by abolishing the long-gun registry." On Dec. 6, 1989, Marc Lepine gunned down 14 female engineering students at École Polytechnique. Bill C-391 recently passed second reading in Parliament and is expected to reach third and final reading early next year. It would destroy the decade-old registry and any data within the system on about seven million shotguns and rifles. The union is planning more protests at other MPs' offices across Atlantic Canada in the next few weeks, said Baldwin. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, November 30, 2009 9:42 am From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: HILL TIMES: Political fur flies over Tories' taxpayer- ...... THE HILL TIMES - NOVEMBER 30, 2009 Political fur flies over Tories' taxpayer-financed 'hate-mail' By TIM NAUMETZ NDP and Liberals call Tories' political flyers 'bold-faced lies.' And the Tories say the Grits are hypocrites as the House Affairs Committee digs into the issue. http://www.hilltimes.com/page/view/mail-11-30-2009 Attack flyers sent to opposition ridings under the names of Conservative backbenchers and Cabinet ministers are leading to a bitter confrontation over the hardball tactics of Tory backroomers. NDP MP Peter Stoffer (Sackville-Eastern Shore, N.S.) will find out this week whether government aides who drafted false claims over his stand on the federal gun registry and circulated them in his riding will be summoned to the Procedure and House Affairs Committee to answer for their actions. In another standoff over the government flyers, the Commons will vote on sending another complaint from Liberal MP Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal) to the same committee for another inquiry . The flyers are known as Ten Percenters because Commons bylaws allow MPs to send flyers to up to 10 per cent of the voter's in any other riding through free Parliamentary postage. In both cases, Speaker Peter Milliken (Kingston and The Islands, Ont.) ruled the flyers had breached the Parliamentary privileges of Mr. Stoffer and Mr. Cotler, both of whom angrily denounced the Ten Percenters as they made their cases in the Commons and the committee. Mr. Stoffer told the Procedure and House Affairs Committee last week he had accepted an apology from Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon - -Wanuskewin, Sask.) for a flyer that falsely claimed Mr. Stoffer supported the federal gun registry, even though he has opposed it since his first election in 1997. But he insisted on getting the chance to confront backroom Conservatives whom Mr. Vellacott implied had produced and distributed the flyers. "I accepted Mr. Velacott's apology, it was sincere, it was correct," Mr. Stoffer told the committee, adding however that although Mr. Velacott's name was on the flyer, he did not draft it. "It was done by somebody in the central party of the Conservative party and, to be frank with you sir, whoever designed this, whoever authorized it to send out, that's the person I would like to meet. I lived in the Yukon [where] we would make sure that person had a disability pension right after we met with him," said Mr. Stoffer. "But we can't do that these days, we have to be nice, but it's that person I would like to see apologize, not just to myself, but to all my other colleagues in the House of Commons who receive this nonsense." Mr. Stoffer called the flyer a "bold-faced lie" and said it would have been impossible for the Conservatives to be unaware of his voting record on the gun registry. "Why did they do it? Is it to piss me off? Is it to get me upset, is it to win my seat, is it to garner votes among my constituents, to get a database or raise funds? If you wanted to say that I voted against certain terms in a budget, that's fair game. If you wanted to send something to my riding talking about the home renovation tax credit, that's fair game. But to send a bold-faced lie into my personal riding," said Mr. Stoffer. Mr. Milliken said a Conservative flyer circulated in Mr. Cotler's riding that suggested Liberals were anti-Semitic and anti-Israel would have left his constituents with "an impression at variance with the member's long-standing and well-known position on these matters." Mr. Cotler told the Commons the flyer, stating that Liberals had participated in an anti-Semitic conference in Durban, South Africa, was "particularly outrageous" because the same flyer had been circulated in other ridings with large Jewish populations and "Durban has emerged for Jews in my own riding and others as a metaphor for virulent anti-Semitism. Accordingly, to identify any political party, let alone a Jewish MP, with willingly participating in such an anti-Semitic event is a most loathsome and dangerous accusation that one could make against that party and that member." He told the Commons that some residents of his riding had, in response to the flyer, urged him to quit as an MP and also to leave the Jewish community. "There could not be a more pernicious and prejudicial fallout from this damaging flyer as that which I have quoted." Citizenship Minister Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Alta.) attempted to defend the flyer, first noting that former federal Liberal citizenship minister Elinor Caplan had accused the Conservative Party of being "filled with racists, bigots, anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers." He also said Mr. Cotler could not deny he had attended the Durban conference. Mr. Cotler agreed Liberals had attended the conference, but were later commended by the government of Israel for denouncing the anti-Semitic statements that took place. Liberal MP Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Man.), who is also Jewish, said a similar flyer in her riding resulted in the "lowest" moment she had experienced during nine years in the Commons. Another Liberal, Wayne Easter (Malpeque, P.E.I.), said nine Conservative MPs are continuously targeting his riding, after he led a successful coalition that prevented the Harper government from dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board. "I call it hate mail," said Mr. Easter. "The reason I'm targeted is I challenged Stephen Harper on the Wheat Board and we beat him." TIM NAUMETZ: http://www.hilltimes.com/column/author/769 news@hilltimes.com ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V13 #589 *********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca Moderator's email: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca FAQ list: http://www.canfirearms/Skeeter/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://www.canfirearms.ca CFDigest Archives: http://www.canfirearms.ca/archives To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next four lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".)