The Proletariat Congress

The Vatican, everyone’s favourite moral authority is once more working to ensure that we don’t keel over and bow into the temptations that come with arrogance. They’re only looking after us, and the new American presidency when they warn against using one’s power of authority to determine life or death. After all, it has the interests of the American people at heart when it warns President Obama over his decision to restore funding to Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice organizations.

One Vatican official warned against the “arrogance” of those in power who think they can decide between life and death.

Of course, it seems to me that they are the ones who are equally as arrogant since they too are determining life or death with different religious edicts. By restricting the flow of information, they too are playing ‘god’; an act of blasphemy in itself. After all, information is simply information until it is acted upon.

The stance of the Vatican stems beyond simply being anti-abortion; it’s anti-birth control, and thus, it puts birth control methods in the same category as abortions. Family planning falls into the same “sinful” category as abortion, and any birth control methods are sinful since it prevents life. Yet on the flip side of the coin, by denying access to it, it endangers a life that already exists; the life of the mother, who may very well have a child and can’t provide for another.

The Vatican is just as wrong; they too toy with the alleged “sanctity” of life with their anti-birth control policies. Hypocrites through all levels of that oppressive backwater archaic patriarch religion. Or at least in the Vatican where they are prevented from being in tune with reality and the nature of the real world, not in the land of make believe with talking frogs and little magical elves who were cute little hats.

Vatican attacks US abortion move

In this world, there are few things no more precious than freedom itself. The freedom to choose one’s own religion, and if it doesn’t suit you, to fe free from religion; freedom of thought, expression, political belief and affiliation. The freedom to think as one wishes. The freedom to move around and associate with different people. The freedom to grow as an individual. The freedom to read and write… and in my case, the freedom to publish your thoughts and opinions in a blog.

Why is freedom so important? Perhaps a quick tour through the above link will remind you why it’s just so important. Every day, somewhere in this world, there is a writer who wants to express their thoughts in the form of fiction as a way of commenting on society, but that writer find themself facing a wall of people who want to prevent that message from being released. Censorship. It’s the only possible word to describe it.

More often than not, censorship arises when people refuse to read the book they claim is a violation of their morals and values. They are simply bleeting, mindless sheep who are listening to the loudest of their kin. They echo everything and believe it with their dying breath because no one told them to read the book and think for themselves.

Challenged Books & Magazine List

Rather than simply list off challenged books, I’d thought I’d link to the pdf itself and allow you the read to take a look. After all, I couldn’t include everything; it would take all day. In whis way, I’m providing you with the information you seek if you’re interested.

You’re probably wondering at this point, what could have prompted me to key in this diatribe? What kind of idiocy could I have encountered? To you, I point to this article in the Toronto Star: Atwood novel too brutal, sexist for school: Parent

The Atwood novel in question is one I studied in OAC Canadian Literature, The Handmaid’s Tale. The novel was originally meant to be studied by 18-19 year old students; in my case, I was much younger since I managed to finish my English credits before the end of the first semester of grade 12. The novel is now studied by students who are 16-17 years old. And yet, there is a parent concerned that his son won’t learn anything from this.

If this parent was concerned about his son’s exposure to anything vile, maybe the father should be starting with whatever the son watches at home, the games he plays or the music he listens to. Sanitize your own home all you want, but leave the public realm untouched. The public doesn’t need another nanny-figure telling us what students should and shouldn’t read.

Russell Morton Brown, a retired University of Toronto English professor, said The Handmaid’s Tale wasn’t likely written for 17-year-olds, “but neither are a lot of things we teach in high school, like Shakespeare.

“And they are all the better for reading it. They are on the edge of adulthood already, and there’s no point in coddling them,” he said, adding, “they aren’t coddled in terms of mass media today anyway.”

He said the book has been accused of being anti-Christian and, more recently, anti-Islamic because the women are veiled and polygamy is allowed.

But that “misses the point,” said Brown. “It’s really antifundamentalism.”

I could have quoted different aspects of the article, but this is the best part. It best summarises up the point as to why books shouldn’t be removed from schools just because there is one parent who doesn’t like it.

As for me… I’ll be reading a book or two this weekend. I haven’t decided what I want to read yet, the three chapters of my corporate law text, the first one of wills and estates or if I want to delve into my real estate text…

I’ve been horribly negligent with my blog, but with good reason.

I’ve been playing an online game since 2003 called “NationStates“. There isn’t much too it. The main website allows for you to create a nation or several if one so desires. In my case, I created a nation called Kryozerkia. Each day your nation can get up to 2 issues to make a ruling on. One can dismiss it or pick one of the often insane options that are available.

The game has a forum as well. The forum has many people who often can’t play nice together, so that’s where the moderators come in. There are mods who are there to overlord the forum and game then there’s me, (I have snazzy moderator powers!) who has enough power to only overlord the forum, but it’s fun enough on its own.

If people just go along, there would be no need for mods on the NS forums… sadly, some people don’t get along. The anonymity of the internet lets people say and post incredibly, extreme asinine shit they probably wouldn’t say or do in real life (though that does remain doubtful since in my pre-mod days I did post really stupid shit that I really did do or say… or for that matter believe). Some of which is designed solely to create a ruckus and rouse the rabble – we call the people who thrive on this: trolls.

Fortunately, trolls don’t last long; at least the highly controversial and highly flammable ones don’t. The ones that do have managed to not trample on too many toes… and the rest of the people are amusing in their own way, even if I don’t agree with most of what the people write.

How sad it is that in a western democracy, where we have a wealth of knowledge at our finger tips; the ability to request and receive information that people are so woefully ignorant of the system that governs us. Over the last few days, this sad truth and reality has reared itself because of Harper’s inability to reconcile with the fact that he has proven to be out of touch with ordinary Canadians; out of touch with 62% of voters – a clear majority for the coalition, and for those who lack math comprehension skills, that’s more than half. Never mind all those who are unable to vote, such as the youth population who may very well en masse disagree with his arrogance and destructive policies.

Harper had many chances to work with the opposition. He had been given a minority mandate. Not every voter supported him. He lacked the necessary support he needed for a majority mandate – also known by those who don’t like whatever party is in chage, a blank cheque for mayhem. He had ample chance to put partisan politics aside and work with the other parties, but instead invoked fear-politics and is painting the opposition as a force that’s out to destroy Canada and usurp the House of Commons through a coup.

The same leader who claims to know what’s right for Canada is lying to the people of the nation. How utterly dishonourable even for a politician. His one of his lies is that the three leaders who signed a pact didn’t do so in front of a Canadian flag.

Liberals, NDP and Bloc sign coalition pact

In the link above, there is a video that was taken by CP – Canada Press – and it clearly shows at least one Canadian flag behind the three leaders. In the segments that follow, in which Dion and Layton speak, in the background are provincial flags. Lie debunked.

Harper ‘lies’ about coalition details: Broadbent

Other lies include that the Bloc was promised 6 senate seats in exchange for their role in the coalition. The Bloc is merely serving as a supporting element and had not been given a significant role. The cabinet that would come out of this is one made up of Liberal and NDP MPs.

1. Partners: Liberal-NDP government led by Stéphane Dion. 24-member cabinet, six from NDP. Liberal finance minister. Deal runs until July 2011.

2. The Bloc: Government to be backed by Bloc Québécois on confidence motions until July 2010. No Bloc role in cabinet.

3. Deficits: Measures to aid economy provided over two years; budget deficits likely. Surpluses return within four years.

4. Economic stimulus: Accelerated spending on infrastructure; money for cities and provinces; aid for auto, forestry and manufacturing; incentives to build and retrofit housing. Corporate tax cuts go ahead.

5. Economic policy: Better skills training; income support for older workers; improved Employment Insurance; mandatory RRIF withdrawal cut by 50 per cent this year; bankruptcy law reform to protect pensions.

6. Other: Reverse Tory cuts to arts; pursue North American `cap-and-trade’ market on greenhouse-gas emissions.

If the number of MPs in the cabinet were to be increased, it would be done proportionately, so that if there was an increase, both parties would be given a chance to put in more members.

The honesty displayed here is a refreshing change. The fact that the coalition is saying that there will be deficits for a few years before we return to surpluses is a fair assessment. The same coalition is working to do what other nations have done, which is try and boost the economy. Harper would rather sit on his hands and do squat. Hell, anyone could.

The money being invested in infrastructure will allow for jobs to be created; money to the cities would do wonders. Imagine an upgraded transit system in Toronto. Our subway system could be expanded to meet the growing demand. More people would want to ride because it wouldn’t be so limited. It would give other cities the same chance to expand their transit systems. A move that would benefit the environment.

Harper has offered Canadians nothing. The coalition is offering us something, and frankly, I am happy to accept their offer. Even if the Bloc is part of this, it doesn’t matter to me. They’ve put partisan politics aside and have shown they can work together.

There is of course historical precedent in Canada to support this, in addition to constitutional provisions permitting this.

Historically, the first real coalition, besides the 1864-67, known as the Great Coalition, which lead to the BNA Act of 1867 and the birth of Canada, there was a coalition that lasted from 1917-1920. It was led by Prime Minister Robert Borden, who introduced the very unpopular conscription mandate, and in order to enforce it, brought in supporters from the Liberal and independent ranks. This served to strengthen his base.

Another notable attempt comes out of the King-Byng affair. The elected government of Meighan didn’t have enough votes to govern, nor did the Liberals with King leading them. Both sought support from a smaller party, and King got it, only to lose the confidence of the house over the customs scandal. When he asked the Governor General, he was refused and the Tories formed a government, only to a few days later be defeated in a no confidence motion. The Governor General had been forced to call a general election. King then won the election and formed a government with the support of the progressives.

This kind of governing has been done at the provincial level as well. In British Columbia from 1941-1951, the province was governed by a Conservative-Liberal coalition. A similar type of arrangement was made in Ontario during the 80s (85-87) between the Liberals and the NDP (Miller and Rae – who is now running for leadership of the Liberal Party).

There is plenty of precedent on the book. It’s plenty legal and very constitutional. The only people who are squawking about “ethics” are those who don’t want to see anyone but the Tories and their weak policies governing Canada.

Governor General Jean is back and is due to make an announcement. With precedent on her side and so little time following an election, the only sensible thing would be to force Harper out. He is refusing to do his job. Let someone else do it.

EDIT (December 4, 2008) – I found a fully copy of the: “A Policy Accord to Address the Present Economic Crisis“. Click on the link to read a copy of it. It’s a pdf file.