Does that make sense to anyone?

Ok, perhaps I made some logic leaps here. Let’s give Coulter the benefit of the doubt and backtrack the logic here. Coulter is filing a hate crime complaint because the University of Ottawa provost, Francois Houle sent her a letter reminding her that:

“Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or ‘free speech’) in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.”

Hmm… still don’t follow the logic. Where is the hate crime?

"I see some hate crime towards me here, officer!" - Coulter

Not only was there no hate, the provost’s reminder can easily be justified, given Coulter’s history of advocacy of violence and genocide:

“People who want our country destroyed live here, work for our airlines, and are submitted to the exact same airport shakedown as a lumberman from Idaho. This would be like having the Wehrmacht immigrate to America and work for our airlines during World War II. Except the Wehrmacht was not so bloodthirsty” (Coulter referring to Muslims in the US)

“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” (Coulter referring to Muslims as a whole)

“Perhaps we could put aside our national, ongoing, post-9/11 Muslim butt-kissing contest and get on with the business at hand: Bombing Syria back to the stone age and then permanently disarming Iran.” – Coulter on US-Middle East Policies

Equating American citizens of non-white ethnicity with the Nazi Germany armed forces combat arm of SS (the most ferocious brigade of Nazi Germany), advocating an indiscriminate bombing of a country and forcefully eradicating a religion practiced by an estimated 1.5 billion people… Do these statements violate Canada’s federal laws regarding hate speech? Let’s examine Canada’s Criminal Code, shall we?

Section 318 of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines that inciting hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is an indictable offense liable to imprisonment. Inciting hatred? Check. “Identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by color, race, RELIGION, ETHNIC ORIGIN, or sexual orientation. Check. “Leading to a breach of the peace?” Check. Both figuratively as used in law and literally.

So, if Coulter had made those public statements in Canada, she could very well have violated federal law.

Back to the provost… Regardless of whether his letter to Coulter was justified, I cannot, in any discernible way, detect any element of hate speech. Coulter claims that the letter constituted as hate speech against her as a member of an identifiable group – white women.

I re-read the provost’s letter, backward three times, translated into five different languages. Nowhere could I find any language remotely suggestive towards targeting white women as an identifiable group. If anyone can find Waldo, please enlighten me.

"There must be some hate crime here..." - Ann Coulter

Ms. Coulter cancelled her talk at the University of Ottawa because she felt unsafe when students swarmed the lecture hall at which she was going to deliver her speech. What a pity. Somehow she blames her decision to cancel the event on the University of Ottawa.

Granted, there were some extreme actions by the protesters like flipping tables and chairs and burning books. Political pundits are making this a big deal calling it ‘an embarrassment to Canada’ and a violation of freedom of speech.

Children, it’s a protest. Just like there is a right to speak, (to which I say Coulter had, and still do), people also have the right to protest. It is this meekness of sitting silently and apologizing while other nations violate our laws that earned our reputation for being weak. If anyone, Coulter knows that as Canada’s reputation has always been the butt of her jokes. Ironically, when protesters take her words for standing up, she is the one who freaks out and whines to the authorities.

"Those faggots, ragheads, and A-Houles called me names!" - Coulter

If someone at fault here for her inability to speak, it is the event planner; who did not prepare an adequate level of security. All controversial events attract protesters. That’s a sign of a healthy democracy, not the other way around. Remember the neo-nazi march in Calgary in 2007, which in turn brought about a protest of anti-racist alliance. Remember Bush’s visit to Canada, which attracted protesters armed with shoes in their hands in 2009. The only difference was that their security level was sufficient. At the end of the day, it was a decision made by the organizer and Coulter herself to cancel the event, not some official censorship, as some people would have it.

This travesty is truly satirical. It is, Coulter who defends a lawless-realist world where individuals should step beyond the law to protect what she believes is right.

“[Canadians] better hope the United States does not roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.” – Coulter

To sum up, it was a protest. There was no hate crime by any parties towards white women. It takes a delusional mind like Coulter to come up with such a delusional accusation. And honestly, it is a little annoying for her to pull another one of her “Look here, I’m Ann Coulter and I’m sensational!”-stunt at the expense of our Human Rights Commission who have better things to do.

Related posts:

1. Thailand’s Bloody Protest
2. Guinea Protest: Soldiers Raped Women In Streets, Killed Dozens Of Protesters, Say Witnesses
3. Ann Coulter Has No Credibility

The protest drew over 100,000 protesters to amass  a 1000 liters of blood – approximately 1000 standard-sized bottles.

Some protesters say the blood throwing is a ritual curse on the leadership, while other protesters say the blood is symbolic for sacrifices they make for the love of their nation.  I say, it’s just really kind of gross. On the bright side, it’s probably the best choice out of all other bodily fluids.

The Red-Shirted Protesters are claiming that the government led by Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva (pronounced Ah-pit-sit Wher-cha-shi-wa) is illegitimate and should step down.  There is much truth in that claim since the current government was not elected, but was installed as a coalition government after the previous government was toppled from pressure through successive protests very much like this one, except the protesters wore yellow shirts and were called the Yellow-Shirted protesters.

"Don't worry, it's just the protesters..."

So it seems the population of Thailand is divided into two groups, much like the United States, but instead of two camps divided by ideologies: Liberalism and Neo-conservativism, Thais are divided by the sincerity of the leaderships.  The previous government, Thaksin-allied, collapsed because two of their Prime Ministers were ousted for corruption charges. The government before that, led by Thaksin was ousted by a military coup and is still, after five years now, fleeing from country to country to avoid extradition for corruption charges. The red-shirted protesters are supporters of Thaksin and want him back in power.

It appears Thai politics is caught in a vicious cycle.  Putting Thaksin back in power doesn’t really solve the problem and would simply set the whole cycle in motion again, putting the Yellow-Shirted protesters back on the street to protest its illegitimacy.

And if the red-shirted protesters are throwing blood around, God knows what the yellow-shirted protesters are going to toss around….

Related posts:

1. Guinea Protest: Soldiers Raped Women In Streets, Killed Dozens Of Protesters, Say Witnesses
2. Coulter’s Ottawa Speech Cancellation is Hate Crime?
3. More Than 80 Killed at Guinea Protest

The highest court of Canada made a declaration that one of our citizens’ basic rights have been violated, yet stopped short of doing anything more, offering no solutions, essentially defecating on Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom and the United Nations’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights of warranting basic human rights and the prohibition of torture.

Which is Worse?

It could be reassuring that the Supreme Court of Canada has the decency to acknowledge the evidence that has surfaced, validating the denial of Khadr’s basic rights. This is contrary to the United States, whose judicial system has systemically disregarded evidences of violation of basic civil rights of American citizens time and time again (and perhaps institutionalizing the practice).

On the other hand, whereas the US adamantly denies a problem ever existed (and is in fact pushing for increasing legislations to codify laws to infringe on civil rights of Americans), Canada has identified a problem but refuses to act on it?   So which is worse?

Americans can speculate the terrible situations of Guantanamo Bay prison and unwarranted wiretapping all they want, but lacking official court evidence, they are merely speculations and accusations and no party is guilty and nothing needs nor can be done at the end of the day.

Yet here, we have the apex of Canada’s judicial system admitting that one of their citizen’s basic rights have been violated and continues to be, yet allowing the government to stand idle, fiercely refusing to seek any type of remedy. This is after the Federal Court of Canada and the Court of Appeals have already sustained that the government has the obligation to seek for his return, no less.  Ottawa’s inaction is an act of extreme despotism.

What’s Wrong

Many seem to be missing the point.  The point is not whether Khadr has committed a crime.  He could very well be guilty of terrorism and treason as some would claim.  Now does that suddenly strip him of his rights?  Do Canadian and International law suddenly not apply?  Our judicial branch has already stated a clear answer to these questions.  Our government is simply ignoring it.

And for those who continually use the argument that committing a crime waives your human rights, we urge you to review Canada’s Charter of Rights and the United Nations mandate.

Who We Are Really Defending

Organizations including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Lawyers Without Borders Canada and University of Toronto Faculty of Law among others are continually fighting for Khadr’s return. The fight is not to defend Omar Khadr, but to defend the integrity of Canada’s mandate in protecting human rights.

Related posts:

1. Irrationality of Canadian GM/Chrysler Bailout
2. Ralph Nader Talks Politics With Canadian-Americans
3. Canadian Federal Election 2008 – Political Platforms

Whether it is the beginning of the end, or merely a temporary dark period in history, 2008 would embody a dismal period in future history books. International conflicts, civil unrest and violent struggles soared in every corner of the world. The only common ground binding humanity was a global economic crisis and a global threat of climate change. We are living in some stressful times.

However, pain and despair often yield integrity and perseverance. It is not without searching through a mist of confusion before one can discover the light of truth. This may be our 2009: a year of enlightenment.

Weathered and tortured faces of pain, agony, frustration, and despair were all too prevalent in 2008, resulting from the failing economy, disasters and wars. These faces, cocktailed with our own set of suffering and anxiety has forced us to re-examine ourselves and to seek a higher truth, justice and peace. The overwhelming support of the icon of change, Barack Obama, was a deafening distress signal from citizens yearning for change, not only in governmental hierachy but in our own moral standards and social structure.

Now, it is difficult to retreat to the Hollywood-esque, matrix-type, picture-perfect lifestyle in the 80s and 90s. Even if you insist on dwelling in the blissful fantasy world, the eroding economy can no longer sustain it. Unless you are the few elites who manage the world’s resources and money supply, you will be left standing in the plane of reality as the illusion collapses around you. A reality that there exists pain, injustice, and uncertainties.

We will face some tough decisions in the harsh times ahead. Decisions requiring knowledge, intelligence, and insight; virtues that we have regrettably abandoned in times of peace and luxury. 2008 was a portrait of the consequences of decades of civic idleness allowing the governments to make all the decisions. Let 2009 be a year of change, a year of enlightenment. A year of true re-examination of the meaning of life-death, wealth-poverty, pain-pleasure and re-asses the value of love, friendship, brotherhood and humanity. Humanity is nothing but an abstract encapsulation of humans. When we have all changed ourselves, we have changed humanity.

I wish everyone peace, love and happiness in 2009.

“All we are saying, is give peace a chance.” – John Lennon

Related posts:

1. Why I’m Excited for Obama’s Inauguration – January 20, 2009
2. Problems We Don’t Know About
3. Let Us Forget Veterans Day

To most, Veterans Day is mere symbolic. Being unacquainted with any real veterans, our gratitude and support can only be delivered quietly, and privately, within the moments of silence, on Veterans Day. When the moments of silence end, we return to our trivial and peaceful lives: a gift from our veterans.

How we wish we could personally say thanks to veterans, young and old. The fact is, we can.

With the war in Afghanistan and Iraq still rampant, clamoring voices of veterans are echoing louder than ever. There are voices calling for help, there are voices screaming for change. What is missing between their voices and our ears is a medium. Unfortunately, this Veterans Day, if not any other days, did not supply that much-needed bullhorn to the very characters that the occasion commemorates.

While chanting “Support Our Troops”, we are blissfully ignorant of the concerns of veterans living next door.

November 12, the day after Veterans Day, marked the trial date for Iraq veteran Adam Kokesh. One of 10 veterans arrested on October 15, 2008 amidst a peaceful protest outside the third Presidential Debate at Hofstra University on Long Island, and not before a violent skirmish. Together with five supporters who were arrested, the group is subsequently referred to as the “Hempstead 15.”

The account of the event has been documented on video, and recounted on interviews. The result — a broken eye orbit and cheekbone from being trampled unconscious by a police horse, and the charges of “disorderly conduct” and “failure to obey a lawful order” to the Hempstead 15. All defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges with trials ensuing.

Like all confrontations, the event is often two-sided despite the camera capturing a rather impartial account of the event. My question, however, is rooted much deeper than who did what on October 15th; a question that rang much louder on Veterans Day.

My question is, why is there an ever-growing population of veterans who are courageously speaking out about the war and taking extra measures to amplify their voices? What have they got to say? What have they witnessed on the battlefields?

Most importantly, why, after all this time, are they still not being heard?

From the protest, to arrest, to charges, to trial, none have made it to mainstream news media. New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, CBS, MSNBC, Fox, where are you? Is it lacking the Hollywood-esque sensationalism? “A group of young war heroes battling an army of state police, with weapons and horses, occurring parallel to the Presidential Debate timeline.” – Hempstead 15. A creative director can make a movie out of it, let along a news segment.

Hence, I ask the nation and its citizens, what is the purpose of Veterans Day, if it is merely a theatrical portrayal of words and ceremonies symbolically blanketing veterans with what they are dangerously lacking in reality: respect, love, and our ears to share their narratives.

Related posts:

1. Karadzic’s War Crime Trial to Begin, Despite Boycott
2. Classified Docs Reveal Blair Cover-up in Iraq War
3. Italian PM to Stand Trial for Corruption

US Presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, delivered a speech in Toronto, Canada yesterday to discuss problems with American politics and to rally support amongst the Americans residing in Canada. My first reaction was: why was Mr. Nader rallying in Canada? Nevertheless, I was enthusiastic to meet the man who allegedly had a role in putting Bush in office in 2000.

The presentation started with a screening of the documentary “An Unreasonable Man”. The first part outlined the history of Mr. Nader as a consumer advocate and his battle with General Motors and other large corporations. It earned a lot of respect from me for Mr. Nader. He stood out as a man standing alongside citizens against the big government-corporation machine battling irresponsible government agencies and breaking down unjust regulations. This distinguished him from the mainstream candidates who merely ‘played the game’ with the machine.

The second part of the video, discussed major problems with the American political system and the nation. The film transitioned nicely into Mr. Nader stepping up on stage as he addressed these issues in person.

Mr. Nader identified the duo-party system, and civic participation being the core issues plaguing the nation today. As a result, America was no longer ‘by the people for the people’, but by and for, large corporations and special interest groups pulling strings of politicians of both parties in the system.

Both the republicans and democrats are working together to keep third-party members from playing the game. US presidential candidates who do not belong to the Republican or Democratic party must collect some 65,000 to 150,000 signatures (depending on the state) from citizens who have not previously voted in the Republican or Democratic primaries within a period of a month or two. The regulation makes it ridiculously difficult for any candidates to emerge from outside the two mainstream parties. To make matters worse, Americans have developed a habit of giving the vote to the candidate most likely to win. Even if one has complete faith in Mr. Nader, if he is believed to be a non-candidate, he will lose numerous votes to a mainstream candidates.

So what’s wrong with the duo-party system? Well, everything. Especially in this era where the two parties show only “micro-differences”. Basically, you can only choose a ‘yes’ and a ‘no’, or if the parties align, only yes, or only no. There is no third option. Duo-party system harvested a symbiosis of corporations and government. Corporations use their power and influence to get the right people in office, who would, in return, set legislations to benefit the corporations.

Civic participation could disassemble this symbiote. Corporations are powerful, but they are outnumbered by general population. If citizens were more engaged with the political scene and capable of directing election results, Congressmen will appease the voters, instead of the corporations and the right men would be in office. He urged citizens to delve into politics as if it’s a hobby (using bird-watching as an example). He sarcastically quoted, “If your grandchildren ask you what you were doing when all this was happening, what are you going to tell them? That you were updating your Facebook profile?” His keen awareness to the social scene of the digital generation was commendable.

The presentation concluded with a Q&A session. There was mention of Guantanamo Bay and the Canadian currently detained; his friend Dennis Kucinich and Congressman Ron Paul, problems with mainstream media, ways to mobilize apathetic citizens, etc.

Perhaps one of the most intriguing questions was, to paraphrase: “Obama did a lot of good for Americans, too. Why should I not support Obama?”

Do people enter Obama rallies and ask Obama why they shouldn’t support McCain? It was a humorous question to me. Instead of laughing at the question, (which I did), Mr. Nader provided a good rebuttal highlighting Obama’s poor records; from supporting the Patriot Act and FISA amendment to his promise to withdraw from Iraq while leaving hundreds of military bases there. He finished his rebuttal with a grave warning “Be prepared to be very disappointed with Obama”, to which I concurred.

All in all, the presentation was more motivational than promotional. It discussed problems facing America but failed to sell resolutions. No proposals of new health-care plan, strategies with Middle East, nor balanced-budget. Perhaps it was not enough to win my vote (yet) but enough to engage me in investigating his policies. It reminded me that changes and revolutions were always sparked by a small number of people.

Related posts:

1. Ralph Nader in Toronto
2. Canada Does Not Guarantee Canadian Rights and Freedoms
3. You Are In Politics (You Just Don’t Know It)