I have a post at The London Fog on the Chair of the Committee for Suatainable Development

 The MapMaster: "...Environment Canada will be issuing a "be vewy afwaid" climate warning."

This is funny:

A hearty round of applause for the MapMaster.

VIA Instapundit, it is an interesting read on the production process.

(Crosspost The London Fog)

From Wikipedia... scientific heresy:

...Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts:

• Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as "formally heretical".
• He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest.
• His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial and not enforced, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.

From Peaktalk ... scientific heresy:

Re-purposing the concept of hate speech, The Weather Channel’s (TWC) and well-known climatologist Heidi Cullen advocates that:

" ... that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming"

I've never been aware that TV-weathermen and women were 'certified', in fact I have always believed that they were just channeling whatever the meteorological reports said. So, engaging in a debate - scientific or not - is actually some good news. But according to Cullen any debate will have to start at a certain level of undisputed knowledge, hers to be precise:

Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement.

Crushing dissent or manipulating the global warming debate? Probably both.

From Dictionary.com ....

Note: Authorities of the Roman Catholic Church forced Galileo to renounce his belief in the model of the solar system proposed by Nicolaus Copernicus. Galileo had to assert that the Earth stands still, and the sun revolves around it. A famous legend holds that Galileo, after making this public declaration about a motionless Earth, muttered, “Nevertheless, it does move.”

Via David Janes:

I’ve seen countless geology-department professors bury their integrity as they morph from respectable paleontologists or geologists from other specialties, to “climate change” experts, then watch the research funding roll in.

How are the polar bears making out these days?

Over at The London Fog, Lisa has beaten me to the MADD (USA) initiative to have breath analysis machines installed in cars. As Lisa concludes:

Today is a great day, as we are closer to our collective goal of total public ownership of all spaces.

Little Tobacco is not a fan of MADD, an organization that started with the best of intentions and now just will not stop until you can't have a drink in this town or anyother. Back in February 2005 I had this to say with respect to MADD's position on beer in the corner stores:

Of course they [MADD] do not want beer in the corner store, not because it will lead to drinking and driving, but because they, like the anti-tobacco lobby, are now in the business of "de-normalizing" alcohol consumption.

Another MADD post.

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has, for reasons unknown, granted leave to appeal  to the Crown in the R v. A.M. case. The facts of the case were summed up by Armstrong J. of the Ontario Court of Appeal as follows:

[1]   On November 7, 2002, three police officers attended St. Patrick’s High School in Sarnia and, with the assistance of a “sniffer” dog, conducted a warrantless and random search of the school.  The attendance of the police on that particular day was not at the request of school authorities.  The principal and staff were unaware that the police were planning to attend until they arrived in the school.

[2]               As a result of an indication from the sniffer dog, the police were directed to the backpack of A.M.  When they searched the backpack, they found that it contained a quantity of marijuana and psilocybin.  A.M. was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in respect of both drugs.

[3]               At trial, counsel for A.M. moved to exclude the evidence of the drugs found in the backpack on the basis that the search by the police was unreasonable and therefore offended s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The trial judge, Justice G. M. Hornblower of the Ontario Youth Justice Court, accepted the submissions of counsel and excluded the evidence related to the drugs under s. 24(2) of the Charter.  In the result, A.M. was acquitted of the charges.

[4]               The Crown now appeals the acquittals on the basis that the trial judge erred in finding a breach of s. 8 of the Charter and in excluding the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

At trial the judge had found as follows:

[21]  The trial judge found that there were two searches.  The first search was the search conducted with the assistance of the sniffer dog; the second search was the search of the backpack of A.M.  The trial judge concluded that neither search was reasonable.

[22]         Finally, the trial judge concluded that the search was a police search in the guise of a search by school authorities.  He noted that, even if it had been a search by school authorities, the school authorities had no right to conduct such a search in the absence of reasonable grounds to believe drugs could be found.

[23]         The trial judge excluded the evidence obtained as a result of the police search under s. 24(2) of the Charter.  In his consideration of the application of s. 24(2) of the Charter the trial judge said:

While this case centres around the rights of A.M., the rights of every student in the school were violated that day as they were all subject to an unreasonable search.  This search was unreasonable from the outset.  It is completely contrary to the requirements of the law with respect to a search in a school setting.  To admit the evidence is effectively to strip A.M. and any other student in a similar situation of the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.  It is effectively saying that persons in the same situation as A.M. have no rights.  Such a finding would, to my mind, bring the administration of justice into disrepute notwithstanding the other factors I have alluded to.

Section 8 of the Charter reads as follows:

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

The evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter. Section 24 of the Charter reads:

   (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Ontario Court looked at the reasonableness of the sniff search and concluded:

[51]         The search in this case was warrantless.  The Supreme Court of Canada in Hunter, et al. v. Southam Inc., 1984 CanLII 33 (S.C.C.), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145 at 161 held that a warrantless search by the police is prima facie unreasonable.  The Crown, who seeks to justify a warrantless search, has the burden of rebutting the presumption of unreasonableness.  In Collins, the Supreme Court held at p. 278 that “[a] search will be reasonable if it is authorized by law, if the law itself is reasonable and if the manner in which the search was carried out is reasonable.”

[52]         I pause here to observe that, in respect of a search by school authorities (on reasonable grounds), the same presumption does not apply: see M.R.M. at para. 50.  However, I have already said that, in my opinion, this was a warrantless search by the police and therefore the presumption in Hunter v. Southam applies.  As Cory J. said in M.R.M. at para 56:

The usual standard, requiring prior authorization in the form of a warrant which is based upon information which provides reasonable and probable grounds, will continue to apply to police and their agents in their activities within a school. The modified standard for school authorities is required to allow them the necessary latitude to carry out their responsibilities to maintain a safe and orderly school environment. There is no reason, however, why police should not be required to comply with the usual standards, merely because the person they wish to search is in attendance at an elementary or secondary school.

The court then concluded that the detention of the students for 1-2 hours was not reasonable, but that this was not as egregious as the warrantless search:

There was no credible information to suggest that a search was justified.  There were no reasonable grounds to detain the students.  As Laskin J.A. said in R. v. Calderon (2004), 188 C.C.C. (3d) 481 at para. 69 (Ont. C.A.): “An officer cannot exercise the power to detain on a hunch, even a hunch borne of intuition gained by experience.”

[58]         The Supreme Court of Canada has held that there must be a clear nexus between the individual to be detained and a recent or on-going criminal offence.  This position was articulated by Iacobucci J. for the majority of the court in R. v. Mann, 2004 SCC 52 (CanLII), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59 at para. 34:

The case law raises several guiding principles governing the use of a police power to detain for investigative purposes. The evolution of the Waterfield test, along with the Simpson articulable cause requirement, calls for investigative detentions to be premised upon reasonable grounds. The detention must be viewed as reasonably necessary on an objective view of the totality of the circumstances, informing the officer's suspicion that there is a clear nexus between the individual to be detained and a recent or on-going criminal offence.

[59]         Quite apart from the detention of the entire student body, of more significance is the unauthorized warrantless random search itself.

[60]         In my view, the Crown has failed to rebut the presumption that the search was unreasonable.  Even if the presumption of unreasonableness did not apply, it is my opinion that there were no grounds upon which to justify a random search of the kind that was conducted in this case.

The evidence was properly excluded.

The idea that the police can collude with  school administrators to detain students while random searches are conducted by the police may sound great to some overly protective parent who has forgotten his own childhood. For me, it just does not pass the smell test.

(Cross post: The London Fog)

A while back I reminded myself that it was time to post on the hate laws in Canada. While the intent of such laws, like so many, is admirable, laws that impinge upon rights, or in this case, trample upon the freedom of expression, invariabaly backfire and are used for purposes for which they were not intended by the framers.

Hate laws were brought about by demands from and with the full support of various Jewish groups. They wanted to stop the Ernst Zundels of this world from propagatng hate against Jews. The result has been far from expected as jewishmag.com writes:

Canada is widely regarded as a model multicultural society; tolerant, peaceful, fair. To be sure, we have our share of bigots, racists and malcontents. But we are a progressive society. Progressive societies resolve their internal differences peacefully, and respectfully. And if some should confuse intolerance for truth or mistake might for right? Well, unlike the US, we also have criminal hate censorship laws, as well as assorted human rights, equity, and hate speech codes to set them right. But before anyone thinks of emulating the "true north strong and free," they better have a close look at what is happening on progressive Canadian campuses.

....

And so, Benjamin Netanyahu and Daniel Pipes cannot equally freely, or fearlessly, speak at any progressive, multicultural, Canadian campus. No pro-Zionist can. But just about every self-serving anti-Zionist demagogue and Israel-demonizing progressive ideologue can. Hate is whatever those with the power to disrupt, destroy, and silence, say it is. And so, only the Jewish voice is a campus security concern. Hate censorship has been hijacked. A shelter against illegitimate promotion of hate has been turned into a sword against legitimate exercise of Jewish voice.

How could it be otherwise? Censorship is force not talk. It is not about demonstration of right, but an exercise in might. Might is a double edged sword. In the end, the sharper edge, as is the nature of might, belongs to the more belligerent, or the more popular, not the more tolerant or the more civil. The popular have sympathy. The belligerent have force. The tolerant, and civil, have only words. By legitimating hate censorship, Jews have robbed themselves of rights to their own words and armed those of their intolerant adversaries. Jewish students on Canadian campuses find themselves neither with equal freedom to speak nor equal freedom from hate. The message is clear: if you are visibly Jewish you do not equally belong, even as every other historically vulnerable community – blacks, gays, Asians, transsexuals, Arabs, and Muslims – does.

There is a lesson in all this. Jewish faith in hate censorship and campus speech codes was a mistake to begin with. Rights to silence weaken, rather than strengthen, the Jewish voice. To be sure, freedom of speech carries risks. But for the tolerant, a political culture built on censorship might, at the cost of talk is, in the end, riskier still. Inclusion by silencing is tolerance built on quicksand. Quiet is not the same as acceptance. Compliance is not comprehension. Jewish hate censorship has been a self-deceiving, and self-debilitating, ruse. In fact, progressive Canadian campuses were rife with undercurrents of singularly anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish sentiment long before the Concordia riot. But it took a Netanyahu to ignite the truth, and bring the failings of campus hate speech and equity codes to light.

While I take the point of the article, I do not suspect that Jewish speech is being repressed by these laws. The state is not charging the speakers under the laws. The problem for the Jews is that when you legitimize "offence" as being worthy of sanction, you are legitimizing the use of force to prevent/stop the "offence".

Offence is the key to freedom of expression. To paraphrase, I may hate what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. This is the freedom of expression. Once there is a decision that certain speech is offensive and will be subject to state sanction; or when the state decides that it will not use its monopoly on the use of force to prevent a mob from committing acts of violence against those who have offended through speech, the right no longer exists. It is  merely a privilege, subject to the whims of the majority or the mob. It is time to repeal these progressive laws which, like many progressive laws, is draconian in its result.

Some of my other posts on free speech can be found here.

Hat Tip: The Volokh Conspiracy.

cross-post: The London Fog

 Elton John wants to ban organized religion. I love celebrity. So used to having no one say no, you eventually believe you are always right. Some enlightened leadership will tell us how to think, what to believe, what to say and with whom to associate. It certainly worked well in the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, China, Syria, Iran and the like. Freedom of religion ( and I should note here that I do not have a religion) is the most fundamental of freedoms. Ban it and ban just about every other right as we have now entered the realm of the thought police.

Speaking religion, have a look at how unorganized religion is working out:

Spirit attacks PLE candidates, disrupt exams

SEVEN pupils missed their Primary Leaving Exams (PLE) on Friday after they were attacked by evil spirits, writes Elizabeth Namazzi.

The evil spirits reportedly struck in the morning when the pupils of Lwampanga Church of Uganda Primary School in Nakasongola District were halfway through the Mathematics examination. Possessed by the evil spirits, seven pupils rushed out of the examination room, hurling insults at people. Thereafter some rolled on the ground and others danced madly around the school compound as people in the vicinity looked on in awe.

Efforts to get a comment from the headmaster and district education officials were futile. However, the LC3 chairman Lwampanga Sub-county, Kassim Dimba, confirmed the incident.

During a ntelephone interview he said the evil spirits first attacked the pupils three weeks ago.

“The spirits first attacked three pupils three weeks ago. We called our local cultural leaders in charge of spirits and they managed to calm them. We thought they had been appeased but the spirits attacked more pupils on Tuesday”, Kassim said.

A total of nine pupils, seven of them candidates, were attacked by the end of Tuesday, two days before the commencement of the PLE exams.

“By the time of the first exam on Thursday, the evil spirits had been cast out and the pupils were able to write the first two exams peacefully. They were however attacked again on Friday morning during the Mathematics examination, sending the school into a panic,” he said.

A development worker who works at the Nakasongola District Headquarters, who preferred to remain anonymous, told Sunday Vision that she had heard about the incident from a local council official.

However, Sunday Vision could not immediately establish whether the incident was hysteria spell or an evil spirit.

According to Kassim traditional healers who were called in to deal with the spirits forced them to talk through the pupils.

“The spirits said that they were brought by a man in our are at a cost of sh1m and put inside a pot,” he said. The hunt for the pot is underway.

The science exam done in the afternoon was completed without incident but the affected students were unable to sit for it as they had not recovered from the attack.

(via Colby Cosh)

cp The London Fog

Borat Sagdiyev may have taken the United States by storm, but he won't repeat his box-office success in Russia.

Less than three weeks before a feature film about Borat, a character created by English comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, was to open in Russian movie theaters, the Federal Culture and Cinematography Agency refused to license it out of concern that the film could offend audiences in this country.

The movie, "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan," about a misogynistic, wife-beating Kazakh journalist with a penchant for mustaches, thus becomes one of the first non-pornographic films to be banned since the breakup of the Soviet Union.