Mike Brock: April 2008 Archives

It's Worse Than I Thought

By
Mike Brock
on April 26, 2008 3:20 PM | | Comments (18) | TrackBacks (0)
Further to yesterdays outrage post, I have received quite a bit of feedback.  But I was very interested where some of that feedback has originated.

Late last night, a CPC staffer, who asked not to be named, leaked me a set of memos and legal briefs on C-51, establishing not only do the Conservatives want this bill passed, but the PMO is putting it's full weight behind getting it through, in it's current form.

Needless to say, this is not a Liberal leftover bill as some commenters have pondered.  It is a purebred Conservative bill, and it would appear that many cabinet ministers are lucidly aware of it's contents, as is the PMO.

I also received a phone call from someone who would remain nameless, who notes that very little if any external consultation was done for this bill.  There was no consultation with provincial health ministries, none with potentially other interested parties.  

This bill literally looks like something the Conservatives want to silently ram through parliament. We must deny them that.

E-mail or call your MP.  Deluge newspapers with editorial comments, etc.  Stop this additional incursion into civil liberties.




I Withdraw My Support From the CPC

By
Mike Brock
on April 25, 2008 6:05 PM | | Comments (40) | TrackBacks (0)
Yesterday, I received an e-mail from Kathy Shaidle, pointing me to an issue that had been completely below my radar screen.  The issue, a bill the Conservative Party has moved on the fast track, known as C-51, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

It sounds almost like an innocuous housekeeping bill, until you start reading it.  When you start reading it, you find it is nothing of the sort.  It's a bill, that seeks to give Health Canada inspectors wide-sweeping powers of search and seizure without warrant, except in the case of dwellings.

What else does that sound like?  I'll skip you the suspense: it sounds a lot like the enforcement section of the Canadian Human Rights Act.  In fact, it reads almost exactly like it:

Authority to enter a place

23.  (1) Subject to subsection 23.1(1), an inspector may, for the purpose of verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance with this Act or the regulations, at any reasonable time enter a place,including a conveyance, in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds that an activity that is governed by this Act or the regulations is conducted or a document relating to the administration of this Act is located.

Powers of inspectors

(2) The inspector may
(a) examine or test anything — and take samples free of charge of an article to which this Act or the regulations apply — that is found in the place;
(b) open a receptacle or package that is found in the place;
(c) examine a document that is found in the place,make a copy of it or take an extract from it;
(d) seize and detain for any time that may be necessary
(i) an article to which this Act or the regulations apply that is found in the place, or
(ii) a conveyance; [They can seize your car! Yay!]
(e) direct the owner or the person having possession, care or control of a conveyance to move it
(f) use or cause to be used a computer or other device that is at the place to examine a document that is contained in or available to a computer system or reproduce it or cause it to be reproduced in the form of a printout or other intelligible output and remove the output for examination or copying;
(g) use or cause to be used copying equipment that is at the place and remove the copies for examination
(h) take photographs or make recordings or sketches; and
(i) direct the owner or person in charge of the place or a person who conducts an activity that is governed by this Act or the regulations at the place
(i) to establish their identity to the inspector's satisfaction, or
(ii) to stop or start the activity,

Assistance and information to be given to inspector

(3) The owner or person in charge of the place and aperson found in the place shall give an inspector who is carrying out their functions all reasonable assistance and provide them with the information that they may reasonably require

Private Property

4) An inspector who is carrying out their functions may enter on or pass through or over private property without being liable for doing so and without the owner of the property having the right to object to that use of the property.

Dwelling house

23.1 (1) If the place referred to in subsection 23(1) is a dwelling-house, an inspector may not enter itwithout the consent of the occupant except under the authority of a warrant issued under subsection (2).

Authority to issue warrant

(2) A justice of the peace may, on ex parte application, issue a warrant authorizing, subject to theconditions specified in the warrant, the inspector named in it to enter a dwelling-house if the justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that
(a) the dwelling-house is a place referred to in subsection 23(1);
(b) entry to the dwelling-house is necessary for apurpose referred to in subsection 23(1); and
(c) entry to the dwelling-house was refused or there are reasonable grounds to believe that it will be refused.

Use of force

(3) In executing a warrant issued under subsection(2), the inspector may not use force unless the inspector is accompanied by a peace officer and the use of force is authorized in the warrant.

Telewarrant

(4) If an inspector believes that it would not be practical to appear personally to make an application for a warrant under subsection (2), a warrant may be issued by telephone or other means of telecommunication on application submitted by telephone or other means of telecommunication and section 487.1 of the Criminal Code applies for that purpose, with the necessary modifications.

Restriction on movement

23.2 An inspector may direct the owner or person having possession, care or control of an article to which this Act or the regulations apply to not move it — or to restrict its movement — for as long as is in the opinion of the inspector necessary for the purposes referred to in subsection 23(1).

This act is unacceptable.  It is contrary to our liberal democratic traditions.  It places extraordinary power in the hands of government bureaucrats, and it makes clear that we can expect no real reform on Human Rights Commissions and their illiberal transgressions into our basic rights.   It makes clear that the Conservative Party has departed from any libertarian leanings it may have portrayed itself to have.

As such, I do not support this party.  I cannot support this party.  

If you are a conservative, if you are a libertarian, or you consider yourself a capitalist, you have been deceived into thinking this is your party.  It is not.  It is at best, a populist party, with increasingly statist tendencies.  

I will remain a member of the Blogging Tories.  Why?  Because I support the movement.  I do not support the party.  They are not worthy of support as I see it.  

The base of support that rallied around them (myself included) believed what they were selling.  We thought they'd be different.  They weren't.

They pushed election spending laws to their limits—if not so far into the gray area—beyond them.  They promised smaller government, and massively increased spending.  Stephen Harper once said he thought the Human Rights Commissions were out of control, and today he instructs his party to sweep the issue under the rug.

Today his party wants to give even more authoritarian powers to bureaucrats, free of judicial oversight, contrary to liberal democratic tradition, and worse... contrary to how they tried to portray themselves to us.

Al & Mike Show Episode 20

By
Mike Brock
on April 10, 2008 6:34 PM | | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)
Gerry Nicholls, columnist and former vice president of the National Citizens Coalition and a Senior Fellow with the Democracy Institute joins us and talks about the conservative movement in Canada. In the second half-hour we talk to Kathy Shaidle about the lawsuit that has been brought against multiple bloggers. Listen Now Subscribe to RSS: Click here for podcast RSS feed. Subscribe in iTunes for your iPod: Click here (Must have iTunes installed)

Al & Mike Show Tonight at 7:30pm EDT / 4:30pm EDT

By
Mike Brock
on April 10, 2008 10:33 AM | | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

A reminder to tune into the Al & Mike Show tonight at 7:30pm EDT / 4:30pm PDT. We'll be joined by Gerry Nicholls for the first half hour.

You can listen live, or subscribe to the podcast here.

You can bet we'll be talking about the Warman suits.

Harper Wimps Out

By
Mike Brock
on April 8, 2008 6:53 PM | | Comments (17) | TrackBacks (1)
Today, Stephen Harper dismissed the idea of an olympic boycott, claiming it would be ineffective and only serve to harm the athletes.

Let me make clear: I know how hard these athletes have been training for the Olympics, but all the athletes should ask themselves: what do these Olympics stand for? 

China has defined these Olympics, as being a celebration of China's arrival on the world stage; definitive proof, that they are no longer a second-class economy, etc.  The question we need to ask ourselves, and ask China—directly—and in no uncertain terms: do you deserve that recognition?

While China's newfound market economy has boomed, political freedom remains stagnant.  The Chinese government operates systematic and pervasive censorship regimes for newsprint, television, radio, and even the internet.  A search for "democracy" on Google in China, returns a message, warning the user they have searched for a forbidden word.

I don't even need to mention the injustices in Tibet, in order to make the case against "celebrating with China," their arrival on the world stage.  Quite simply because, I don't welcome them on the world stage.

I welcome Chinese people on the world stage, and I welcome their continued immigration to Western countries.  

I applaud Poland and the Czech Republic for their boycotts. I condemn Harper and his government for acquiescing back into a policy of appeasement.  And I'm one step closer to taking my vote off the table in the next election.    

When Harper said that he wasn't "going to trade Canadian values for the almighty dollar", I was very impressed. Today, we learn that was empty sentiment, just as we learned his position on the Human Rights Commission was empty sentiment.  

Come to think of it, it's really strange why Liberals hate Stephen Harper so much. He's practically become Jean Chrétien without the french accent.

Update: I'm not the only one on the right who shares this sentiment; The Canadian Republic weighs in.

Also: It's not surprising that McGunity doesn't really care about human rights either.

Update2: How about this...  Can we at least boycott the opening ceremonies? 

Things...

By
Mike Brock
on April 7, 2008 9:52 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
Sorry for the light posting of late. I will post something significant later on tonight. 

In reality: I have a real job to do, where I make money, to pay the bills for things like web hosting.  

For those of you who listened live to the Al & Mike Show last week and watched one of the most embarrassing moments in online broadcasting history, you'll be happy to know that this week, the studio is equipped with appropriate backups in the case we suffer such a failure again.  

The postmortem on the actual failure, turned out to be a failed CPU fan inside the computer responsible for driving the mix, and providing the production audio.  The phone system and internet stream continued to work fine, well, because they are both controlled by separate computers.  

The most embarrassing part of all, was not the crash itself, but the fact we lost the entire recording.  

This error was my fault.  The backup minidisc recorder was not rolling, and I had not bothered to enable to record function on ustream either.  The backups were sound.  The operator was not.

I now have a printed checklist of things to do before the show.  One of those things now includes "pushing the red record button on minidisc recorder".

In terms of guests, we have Gerry Nicholls this week.  And next week we have Kate McMillan of the SDA.

Comment Spam

By
Mike Brock
on April 7, 2008 9:33 PM | | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)
My comment spam is way out of control.  This has forced me to enable moderation.  However, you will only be moderated once. This mode of comment moderation only requires me to authenticate trusted commenters, which are then automatically approved in the future.  

As it stands right now, I am having to manually delete like 20 comment spams a day.  

My open comment policy still stands.  I will approve all commenters unless they are posting advertisements for breast enlargement creams or viagra.  

I really hate to have to do this, but my spam filter is not cutting it.  Worse, it's catching too many real messages as spam, while letting through multitudes of real spam.  If anybody has any experience at spam filtering with MovableType, I'm all ears.

Note: I've gone back and retroactively trusted most regular commenters.  So if you comment here a lot, you shouldn't notice anything different.

How The Pro-Censorship Crowd Thinks

By
Mike Brock
on April 5, 2008 3:12 PM | | Comments (38) | TrackBacks (0)
Despite what lying jackal Warren Kinsella has to say on the subject, the free speech movement in this country is winning.  The wind is at our backs, and as Ezra Levant points out, we're well on our way to denormalization of the the Human Rights Commissions.

The logic of the pro-censorship crowd is laughable.  That, to not support the criminalization of hate speech, is akin to condoning hate speech. Or that, to not support "human rights" charges against a racist like Marc Lemire is akin to sympathizing with, or outright sharing those racist sentiments therein.

Speaking of fools, what kind of fool runs around with logic like this?  The last time I checked, leftist heros like Betty Friedan and Mohatma Ghandi, both opposed challenging Hitler and his holocaust.  I must therefore conclude, that their pacifism, as well as the pacifism of the Swiss in this event, amounted to their tacit support, making them de-facto Nazis.

The bottom line: it's absolutely tenuous logic to suggest that myself, Ezra Levant, or Kate McMillan have any sympathy for neo-Nazis in this country.  In fact, the continued attempts to suggest as much in certain corners of the left-wing idiosphere, constitutes nothing less than complete and utter, intellectual bankruptcy.

On that front, I find the absolute obsession of Kate McMillan these days, by those on the left, to be quite humorous.  Their concerted campaign to bring her down makes me smile.  Partly because they think they're succeeding, and partly because it reinforces something they'll never admit: that McMillan is in control of the debate; they're only responding.

To be honest, I thought the lying jackal and others would be have more substance than simply making stuff up, about what I and other people think.  

It's time for me to come to a realization I've long denied myself: that these tactics by the pro-censorship crowd only confirms they are wrong.  Worse, it confirms they are devoid of human decency, and any real morality.  I suppose for those types of people, you can't have much of those things, when your agenda includes throwing people in jail, sending them to political re-education camps, and rationalizing thought oppression. 


When Challenged...

By
Mike Brock
on April 4, 2008 11:06 PM | | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)
The big bad bully tries to save face in the best way he can:

Brock, who is a fool, insists he's not anti-native. When he supports the "rights" of neo-Nazis to spew anti-aboriginal hate, and is indifferent to the consequences, then what is that? So you're not anti-native, Brock: fine. You're still a creep.

I'm glad you've admitted I'm not anti-native.  I note, that you have backpedaled despite the fact you were looking forward to "dancing" with me in court.  

I don't think you really wanted to dance with me in court, considering you would have had no real defense.  You told an indefensible lie, after all.

Kindly enough, you've backpedaled before I've had to spend a single penny on a lawyer.  So much for the big, bad Kinsella.  

Reminder: Al & Mike Show with Marc Emory

By
Mike Brock
on April 3, 2008 4:06 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
Remember to tune in tonight at 8:00pm Eastern, 5:00pm Pacific for the Al & Mike Show.  Marc Emory, cannabis activist will be our guest.

Update: The interview with Marc Emory was quite interesting.  If you were listening live, you had the pleasure of hearing it.  If you subscribe to, or listen to our podcast, then you missed it.  We had a catastrophic failure of our equipment 40 minutes into the show.

For all the planning I did for that scenario, I was too stupid to turn on the backup minidisc recorded as I have done previously.  The one bloody time, that I forgot to roll tape on the backup, is the one time the main system fails.  How upsetting.

Thanks for being our guest Marc.

Kinsella Responds

By
Mike Brock
on April 2, 2008 11:15 PM | | Comments (15) | TrackBacks (0)
Kinsella has responded to my request to retract and apologize. 

Kinsella is mocking my legal advice, of course. This, despite the fact, that my demand makes clear that I have not actually retained counsel.  So it should come as no surprise that all communication between myself and him were of a personal, not legal nature.  Nonetheless, he's surprised.

Mr. Kinsella has rejected my personal appeal to correct the record, despite his callous defamation, by both threatening to countersue me, and by telling me to "piss off".  Not exactly becoming behavior for a lawyer.

Of course, I consider this matter serious, and while Mr. Kinsella clearly thinks it is not, I find his demeanor remarkable.  I mean, considering he has himself, threatened to sue me and many others on tenuous grounds in the past.

I would remind Mr. Kinsella, since he's decided to take our private conversation public, that you have stated the following falsehoods about me, with the intention to impugn my character:

1. That I defended the actions of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations in reinstating David Ahenakew;
2. and that I have an "anti-aborginal animus"

I find these two characterizations unacceptable.  Mr. Kinsella has not sourced the basis for making these claims—which is telling in and of itself—and is acting in a way that is both immature and uncivil.

I make these notes publicly, absent legal counsel, because I believe it personally prudent to protect my reputation in this regard.  

Mr. Kinsella has notified me, that he will be pursing a lawsuit for me calling him a "fascist" in response, which is fine.  I invite him to do so.  I don't think he has a case.  But he can certainly try. 

Hey Kinsella, Do Some Bloody Research

By
Mike Brock
on April 2, 2008 4:45 PM | | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (0)
Apparently, Kinsella seems to think I'm "rallying" to Ahenakew's defense.  Of course, years ago, on my old blog, I wrote some things suggesting that I did not support the hate crime charges against him—I don't support any hate speech legislation.

I also recently noted that I support the recent lower court decision to dismiss the hate speech charges against him. Of course, I took the time to publicly berate him, as the anti-semetic bigot he is.  This nuance went completely ignored by Warren Kinsella, who sought to suggest I'm defending his re-instatement in the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations:

Notably, the hate blogs - Brock, Currie, Shaidle, McMillan et al. - have all suspended their anti-aboriginal animus long enough to rally to Ahenakew's defence, and his "right" to call Jews a "disease."

If you must know what my opinion is on the matter—it is simply this:  The FSIN had every right to re-instate Mr. Ahenakew.  The fact they did, speaks loads to me about their integrity.  I now think lowly of the FSIN, just as I do Mr. Ahenakew.

I do not support his re-instatement.  I think it is a disgrace that they have seemingly chosen to accept his bigoted ways.  It makes me ask questions about the FSIN, and what views they collectively hold.  They have sent a message to me, and the people of Canada, that they are tolerant of bigotry, and I have adjusted my opinion of them appropriately.

Do not speak for me, Mr. Kinsella.  For a man who's thrown threats of lawsuits in my face for libel, you seem quick to attach words to me that I never spoke.  

If you can find a place on the internet, in comments, on a message board, on my blog, or anywhere else, I'd be happy for you to publicly rebut me.  But you won't succeed in any such research project, for such words, I never spoke.  In fact, this is the first time I've even weighed in on this issue.  Right here, right now.  Perhaps you were just mentally charging me with one of those pre-crimes you are so passionate about enforcing.

Further, you have characterized me as having an "anti-aboriginal animus".  I'm not exactly sure how you've drawn this observation.  

Warren Kinsella, you are a liar and a snake.  You've misrepresented my views before.  That's fine.  But please don't think I'll allow you to just invent views that I don't hold.

I know you think I'm just a lowly blogger.  But it's dangerous for you to presume that I do not have the will and financial capacity to respond in a meaningful way to you telling lies about me.  I do.


If Only...

By
Mike Brock
on April 1, 2008 12:52 PM | | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)
it wasn't April Fools Day.
« Mike Brock: March 2008 | Main Index | Archives | Mike Brock: May 2008 »