In 2006 Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized for the Head Tax, a levee charged against Chinese immigrants to Canada. This tax is rightly considered to be among the most racist laws ever passed in Canada, and the apology was the right thing to do, regardless of how long ago this injustice took place. It was also proper to compensate those who had paid the tax.
For some raised in this age of collectivized guiltmongering and blamestorming that apology was obviously not enough.
So now the children of those Chinese immigrants that paid the head tax, but who died before the apology was issued feel that "The apology was not as meaningful to us as it was to other [Chinese families],” and that “The federal government left out a large chunk of people and you have to find some way you can meaningfully provide redress for them.”
Left out? Excuse me? I'll quote from the PM's speech, you tell me who was left out...
"On behalf of the people and government of Canada, we offer a full apology to Chinese-Canadians for the head tax and express our deepest sorrow for the subsequent exclusion of Chinese immigrants."
Did the PM say, that the apology was only to those that paid the tax? No. It was issued in good faith to all Chinese-Canadians.
That can only mean one thing... It means that the "meaningful redress" that these non-suffering survivors are talking about is nothing more (or less) than "victim" talk for give me some money.
That is ridiculous. I would like just one of these poor downtrodden souls to explain to me and to show me in objective terms just how a law to which they were never subjected, which has been rescinded since 1923 has ever affected them in the slightest possible way. Hell, Sid Chow Tan, the president of the Head Tax Families Society of Canada was born on May 20, 1949, 26 years after the law was removed from the books.
I would wager that since the law was repealed 87 years ago that at least 90% of those family members calling for "meaningful redress" (money) are like Mr. Tan, and were not even born when the law was struck down.
But this particular call for restitution (as opposed to the original) really isn't about the effects of the law at all is it?
No.
It's a not so subtle reminder that there were times when Canadians and their government acted with malice and racism. But more than that it is about holding current generations hostage to collectivized guilt.
Aside from the stated goal to "promote racial harmony amongst all Canadians" the Head Tax Families Society of Canada by pursuing this frivoulous claim to collective hardship is only continuing to divide Canadians from Canadians based on a historic aberration and race politics.
Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Not Neutral... Ambivalent. Not Compassionate... Evil
I will never donate another penny to the Red Cross.
The Red Cross' treatment of the Taliban in Afghanistan exemplifies the predominant philosophy of our age writ large. The Red Cross is exhibiting its altruistic roots, it is supporting people who would see it and every other vestige of "western society" completely destroyed. How wonderfully selfless.
Ayn Rand once said that "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent." and she was right.
That answer to the Red Cross' implicit philosophy draws some fire from "compassionate humanists" though...
"The Red Cross is just being neutral" they say just like in WW2 when they dealt with German POW's in Prison camps.
That is a good point and I hadn't thought of it before but their assistance to the Taliban now is no different than their assistance to Nazi's in WW2.
I see now that the Red Cross is not immoral for doing this but rather that it is amoral. It is designed as an organization to be unable to distinguish between right and wrong, good from evil. Which in my book puts it directly alongside the evil it is unable to recognize.
"But the Red Cross is just like Switzerland..." they cry "Neutral!"
But they miss a very important distinction between the Swiss neutrality and the Red Cross'.
The Swiss neither help nor hinder any side. They keep their hands to themselves in all matters. This isn't amoral, they have decided that it is in their self-interest as a nation to stay out of it all altogether.
The Red Cross is not neutral it is ambivalent. It doesn't care who it helps. It makes every one of the good guys fighting for the moral and right reasons, the exact same as every misogynistic, racist, ignorant, socially backward, religious fanatic and bugger Taliban on the battlefield.
In short, the Red Cross equates MMV winners, guys like Tpr Shane Dolmovic and our leaders, like General Hillier with the scum-bags who throw acid on schoolgirls and stone women to death for the crime of adultery when they have actually been raped.
There is a moral choice facing the Red Cross, it is as clear as white and black, and they are evil for failing to make that choice.
Then comes the next philosophical head fake...
"The Taliban were raised to believe what they do, their society is structured that way, their religion has taught them that they are right. So who are we to say what is moral? "
To answer a question of morality I would ask what is the purpose of existence and what position among all the positions of all religions, ideologies and cultures best upholds that purpose?
For me the purpose of existence is life, my life and my living of it. In other words living in a rationally self-interested way.
Now this does not mean living as a range of the moment hedonist. Tiger Woods was not operating in his self-interest when he was out whoring around, as evidenced by how much those actions have cost him personally and professionally.
Nor is it a blank cheque to treat people as sub-human, as disposable and worthless. After all it does not further my life to live in a society where I would need to treat every other person as a danger rather than a possible source of value to enhance and enrich my life.
It also doesn't benefit me to treat this life like a shadow of something more "beyond the grave". Reality and the facts of it all point to this being the only existence we are going to get. Dismissing reality is the first cardinal sin against living a good, long, successful and happy life.
It also means that altruistic sacrifice (the relinquishment of a greater benefit for a lesser one) is contrary to living in this life.*
* A note here, our soldiers do not sacrifice themselves for a lesser value. They have either made a conscious decision that what they are fighting for is worth the possibility of death or they have weighed the risks and believe themselves to be skilled enough to survive where others will not. Neither of these is sacrifice.
So to get back to the deciding of what is moral or not; using these few points and many others that it would take too long to list I can, and you can, determine what is moral and what isn't, and we should.
More than that I believe that this world would be much better off if people would use the standard of their own lives to determine their morality instead of accepting someone else's definition, ideology or superstition.
Like Rand said. "The moral principle to adopt is Judge and be prepared to be Judged."
Actions can not be separated from their results, no matter if you claim compassion, humanity or neutrality as your excuse. No matter if you are an individual or a multi-national organization.
I have judged the Red Cross by their actions and I find them to be immoral, and evil.
*H/T Chris
The Red Cross' treatment of the Taliban in Afghanistan exemplifies the predominant philosophy of our age writ large. The Red Cross is exhibiting its altruistic roots, it is supporting people who would see it and every other vestige of "western society" completely destroyed. How wonderfully selfless.
Ayn Rand once said that "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent." and she was right.
That answer to the Red Cross' implicit philosophy draws some fire from "compassionate humanists" though...
"The Red Cross is just being neutral" they say just like in WW2 when they dealt with German POW's in Prison camps.
That is a good point and I hadn't thought of it before but their assistance to the Taliban now is no different than their assistance to Nazi's in WW2.
I see now that the Red Cross is not immoral for doing this but rather that it is amoral. It is designed as an organization to be unable to distinguish between right and wrong, good from evil. Which in my book puts it directly alongside the evil it is unable to recognize.
"But the Red Cross is just like Switzerland..." they cry "Neutral!"
But they miss a very important distinction between the Swiss neutrality and the Red Cross'.
The Swiss neither help nor hinder any side. They keep their hands to themselves in all matters. This isn't amoral, they have decided that it is in their self-interest as a nation to stay out of it all altogether.
The Red Cross is not neutral it is ambivalent. It doesn't care who it helps. It makes every one of the good guys fighting for the moral and right reasons, the exact same as every misogynistic, racist, ignorant, socially backward, religious fanatic and bugger Taliban on the battlefield.
In short, the Red Cross equates MMV winners, guys like Tpr Shane Dolmovic and our leaders, like General Hillier with the scum-bags who throw acid on schoolgirls and stone women to death for the crime of adultery when they have actually been raped.
There is a moral choice facing the Red Cross, it is as clear as white and black, and they are evil for failing to make that choice.
Then comes the next philosophical head fake...
"The Taliban were raised to believe what they do, their society is structured that way, their religion has taught them that they are right. So who are we to say what is moral? "
To answer a question of morality I would ask what is the purpose of existence and what position among all the positions of all religions, ideologies and cultures best upholds that purpose?
For me the purpose of existence is life, my life and my living of it. In other words living in a rationally self-interested way.
Now this does not mean living as a range of the moment hedonist. Tiger Woods was not operating in his self-interest when he was out whoring around, as evidenced by how much those actions have cost him personally and professionally.
Nor is it a blank cheque to treat people as sub-human, as disposable and worthless. After all it does not further my life to live in a society where I would need to treat every other person as a danger rather than a possible source of value to enhance and enrich my life.
It also doesn't benefit me to treat this life like a shadow of something more "beyond the grave". Reality and the facts of it all point to this being the only existence we are going to get. Dismissing reality is the first cardinal sin against living a good, long, successful and happy life.
It also means that altruistic sacrifice (the relinquishment of a greater benefit for a lesser one) is contrary to living in this life.*
* A note here, our soldiers do not sacrifice themselves for a lesser value. They have either made a conscious decision that what they are fighting for is worth the possibility of death or they have weighed the risks and believe themselves to be skilled enough to survive where others will not. Neither of these is sacrifice.
So to get back to the deciding of what is moral or not; using these few points and many others that it would take too long to list I can, and you can, determine what is moral and what isn't, and we should.
More than that I believe that this world would be much better off if people would use the standard of their own lives to determine their morality instead of accepting someone else's definition, ideology or superstition.
Like Rand said. "The moral principle to adopt is Judge and be prepared to be Judged."
Actions can not be separated from their results, no matter if you claim compassion, humanity or neutrality as your excuse. No matter if you are an individual or a multi-national organization.
I have judged the Red Cross by their actions and I find them to be immoral, and evil.
*H/T Chris
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Forget the Colour of the Collar
Here is a question for you. What is the difference in principal between an embezzler and an unarmed bank robber?
What is the difference between stealing for a mob boss and stealing for a legal and legitimate organization?
The answer is of course none. There is no difference, theft is theft, force is force. So why do we have a distinction of "white collar" and "blue collar" crime?
Lady justice is supposed to be blind but do we as a society draw aside the blindfold just enough to let her know if the person standing accused has a good education or is more well to do? Apparently so.
The story of Benoît Corbeil makes that abundantly clear. The maximum sentence for theft over $5000.00 is life imprisonment, according to this chart, can you imagine our imaginary unarmed bank robber being sentenced for only 15 months after stealing $117,315? Could you imagine a judge entertaining an appeal on the grounds that such a sentence was "too onerous"?
It's time to put the blindfold back on Lady Justice and start handing out sentences for theft that reflect the actual crime.
By the way Corbeil, as far as you loosing your job at Université du Québec à Montréal that is something you should have considered before becoming a thief and a criminal.
What is the difference between stealing for a mob boss and stealing for a legal and legitimate organization?
The answer is of course none. There is no difference, theft is theft, force is force. So why do we have a distinction of "white collar" and "blue collar" crime?
Lady justice is supposed to be blind but do we as a society draw aside the blindfold just enough to let her know if the person standing accused has a good education or is more well to do? Apparently so.
The story of Benoît Corbeil makes that abundantly clear. The maximum sentence for theft over $5000.00 is life imprisonment, according to this chart, can you imagine our imaginary unarmed bank robber being sentenced for only 15 months after stealing $117,315? Could you imagine a judge entertaining an appeal on the grounds that such a sentence was "too onerous"?
It's time to put the blindfold back on Lady Justice and start handing out sentences for theft that reflect the actual crime.
By the way Corbeil, as far as you loosing your job at Université du Québec à Montréal that is something you should have considered before becoming a thief and a criminal.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Don’t Call It Moral.
The Scottish Judge who released Terrorist bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi the killer of 270 people over Lockerbie Scotland said in an interview with CNN that;
“Equally, we have values that we seek to live by, even if those who perpetrate crimes against us have not respected us or shown any compassion. Here is a dying man. He didn't show compassion to the victims, American or Scottish. That does not mean that we should lower ourselves, debase ourselves, or abandon our values.
He was justly convicted, but we're allowing him some mercy to return home to die.”
This statement by the judge implies the application of a moral standard, but morals are defined as; of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong;
The last part is central to my point. Under Christian religious morality one should always find it in their heart to forgive a transgressor, no matter what it is that they have done wrong. This is the central tenant of Christian “morality”.
The problem is that it isn’t moral; it is specifically and implicitly amoral. It discards all concept of right and wrong and replaces it with the vilest abdication of thought imaginable. Christianity tries to make the devout follower indifferent to questions of right or wrong and wholly dependent and subservient to some mystical whim which is itself contradicted in Christian religious writings (including anecdotal evidence of god’s actions).
So here is your choice. You can believe in the Christian morality and try to walk your religious tightrope which lists a multitude of things as evil but also states that you should forgive any transgression no matter how vile, or you can apply the morality encapsulated in the sentence “In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.”
Quickly… Choose. Choose to compromise on any and all moral decisions, to abandon any principal based on the whim of a deity who himself fails to apply what he teaches, or you can take the hard line, the resolute stance to believe in right and wrong regardless of circumstance, immovable by whim, immutable by the mystic babbling of an invisible unknowable and completely inconsistent god.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
3 Months To Live
Megrahi was sentenced to life in prison in 2001 for taking part in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 on Dec. 21, 1988, and was to serve at least 27 years behind bars.
However, he was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer last year and doctors have said he has less than three months to live.
Well isn't that special. I wonder how much of that three months this terrorist mass murderer will spend laughing at the weakness of the west's version of "justice".
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Less Than A Parent
Is this for the rights and interests of children or against the rights and interests of Fathers?
I understand the need to legally protect the rights of children in custody battles. Being minors their voice and interest can often be lost in their parents bitterness and sundry legal machinations.
But wouldn't it have been much more proper for Minister Nicholson to say;
"The interests of children must take priority overa father's a parents right to an equal parenting role after divorce,"
As spoken, the Minister is advocating the dismissal of one parents rights based soley upon sex. Many fathers already believe that in a divorce, the mother is given preferential treatment in custody and in today's day and age that is a crime.
The statement from the minister is nothing more than a glimpse at his own predjudice, and that of many other people. It is the predjudice that labels mothers as being the nurtuting, loving, child rearing masters of men, It is sexist, baseless, discriminatory and illegal.
It's high time that equality started to mean equality all the time for everyone in this country.
I understand the need to legally protect the rights of children in custody battles. Being minors their voice and interest can often be lost in their parents bitterness and sundry legal machinations.
But wouldn't it have been much more proper for Minister Nicholson to say;
"The interests of children must take priority over
As spoken, the Minister is advocating the dismissal of one parents rights based soley upon sex. Many fathers already believe that in a divorce, the mother is given preferential treatment in custody and in today's day and age that is a crime.
The statement from the minister is nothing more than a glimpse at his own predjudice, and that of many other people. It is the predjudice that labels mothers as being the nurtuting, loving, child rearing masters of men, It is sexist, baseless, discriminatory and illegal.
It's high time that equality started to mean equality all the time for everyone in this country.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Missing The Point
I beg your pardon?
This is what happens when context is forgotten.
The context is not the fact that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi has terminal prostrate cancer. The context is that this piece of human flotsom was directly responsible for the brutal massacre of two hundred and seventy people.
Before Scottish justice minister, Kenny Macaskill releases al-Megrahi (if he chooses to do so) he should have to explain his rationale for doing so based on "compassionate grounds" to the families of every one of al-Megrah's victims.
Just in case you were wondering...
Com⋅pas⋅sion - {kuhm-pash-uhn} - a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.
This is what happens when context is forgotten.
The context is not the fact that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi has terminal prostrate cancer. The context is that this piece of human flotsom was directly responsible for the brutal massacre of two hundred and seventy people.
Before Scottish justice minister, Kenny Macaskill releases al-Megrahi (if he chooses to do so) he should have to explain his rationale for doing so based on "compassionate grounds" to the families of every one of al-Megrah's victims.
Just in case you were wondering...
Com⋅pas⋅sion - {kuhm-pash-uhn} - a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
