Thursday, January 17, 2008

Another case for the HRC?

Warren Kinsella seems a bit offended by the tone of today's National Post editorial.

He finds it too angry. I knew we had "thought police" in Canada, but emotion police too?

Warren dredges up that tired, old Mike Harris meme, in an attempt to chastise the Post for displaying 'explosions of anger'.

What he doesn't seem to realize is that any so-called anger or frustration isn't directed at the natives, but rather at his beloved Premier, for shrugging his shoulders and abandoning the developers without any kind of tangible support.

* * * *
Friday Update: Six Nations shirking rule of law: Developers. (Post)
"Where the hell is the law and order here?"

For some reason, only part of the print article appears online. An important paragraph has been omitted:

But developers say if they don't pay, the Ontario Provincial Police and the Ontario government won't step in to help them when their projects are taken over by an occupation.

This is what you elected, Ontario. Congratulations.

Great letter in Friday's Post:

The Grand River Haudenosaunee problem might be resolved by allowing a 100% tax credit to developers and other property owners forced to pay protection money to native bands. The resulting loss of tax revenue, plus any policing costs, would be deducted from the nominal $9-billion paid by the Canadian taxpayer to aboriginals every year.

This arrangement would keep defenceless property owners from being harmed via direct intimidation by native protesters and place the onus to resolve the conflict back with the government.

Roger Jones, Thornhill, Ont.

- A very creative solution!

* * * *

BTW, Irene Mathyssen better not check out Warren's blog. She may be offended.

Regarding our HRC's - This is a slam-dunk: David Warren - The closed minds of today's intellectuals:
"I think the Pope's visit is not a good thing because science doesn't need religion. The university is open to every form of thought but religion isn't," said Andrea Sterbini, a computer-science professor who was one of 67 academic signatories of a document protesting the pope's visit.

In those two sentences my reader may see exposed the grounding assumption of every politically correct proposition in the postmodern, so-called liberal mind. The speaker assumes there is an official "open-minded" position that must be protected by law or force. He then insists on banning any deviation from this official "open-minded" position...

No comments: