Bizzaro Copenhagen

Just a couple of things that happened at the summit in Copenhagen that leave me wondering.


How is it that Jack Layton, the guy rallying against the HST because the increase in taxes will harm families, can be in favour of the proposed fund of upwards of 200 billion dollars collected from the 'developed' countries (including about 30 billion from Canada) ? Wouldn't taking 30 billion dollars from Canadians and their families be a much greater burden than the HST would?


Was Al Gore trying to make sure that the "Gore effect" did not happen again when he called for the world leader to meet in Mexico in July rather than the proposed date in late fall? I mean what are the odds that it would snow in Mexico City in July?


Why did the PM get such a rough ride from the same media and lefty environmentalists who were falling all over themselves praising Obama? Hasn't the PM said on numerous occasions that our AGW policies would mirror those taken by the US? But in the press Obama = good and Harper = bad, even if they have the exact same goals for CO2 reductions.


Why is it that Canada who responsible for only 2% of the worlds total CO2 emissions gets all sorts of grief when China, currently responsible for 22% of those emissions, gets treated with kid gloves? Even more interesting is that in the last few years China has increased its emissions by about 10% a year, or in more simple terms they have increased their yearly output a total equal to our total output. Yup Canada is the problem. More fossil awards please.


And lastly where were Ignatieff and the Liberals? We know that if Dion was still leader he would have went to Copenhagen, so why didn't Ignatieff go?


Oh I almost forgot, what about the science?



pt2, pt3, pt4

ht SDA

UN Human Rights Council removes rights from humans...

... and gives them to inanimate objects and ideas.

Full Story here: A United Nations forum on Thursday passed a resolution condemning "defamation of religion" as a human rights violation, despite wide concerns that it could be used to justify curbs on free speech in Muslim countries.

The U.N. Human Rights Council adopted the non-binding text, proposed by Pakistan on behalf of Islamic states, with a vote of 23 states in favor and 11 against, with 13 abstentions.

"Defamation of religious is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of their adherents and incitement to religious violence," the adopted text read, adding that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."

It called on states to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are protected, to reinforce laws "to deny impunity" for those exhibiting intolerance of ethnic and religious minorities, and "to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs."

Unbelievable! Real rights removed from people and given to religions instead. What the hell is going on in the UN?

How was something as insane as this even considered, never mind how it passed a vote with 23 countries in favour and 13 countries who apparently couldn't care less and abstained. When I find out how the countries voted I will post up the list.

So what was Canada's position? (at least currently, I have doubts it would remain the same under a Liberal Government)

"It is individuals who have rights, not religions," Ottawa's representative told the body. "Canada believes that to extend (the notion of) defamation beyond its proper scope would jeopardize the fundamental right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of expression on religious subjects."

A voice of common sense for now, but it did not do any good in the end.

Human Rights Commission: UN Edition

Being that most of you are familiar with what is going on in Canada with some of our various Human Rights Commissions, I thought it might be of interest to take a look at what has been going on at the UN and their Human Rights Council.

The top U.N. rights body on Thursday passed a resolution proposed by Islamic countries saying it is deeply concerned about the defamation of religions and urging governments to prohibit it. Although the text refers frequently to protecting all religions, the only religion specified as being attacked is Islam, to which eight paragraphs refer.

The UN Human Rights Council adopted Thursday the resolution-- proposed by Islamic countries-- on a 21-10 vote over the opposition of Europe and Canada. (Thank you Mr. Harper)

Speaking for the EU, Slovenian Ambassador Andrej Logar said the 27-nation body was committed to tolerance, nondiscrimination and freedom of religion. But instead of a one-sided approach, it would be better to engage in dialogue with mutual respect.

The Saudi delegation said, "Maybe Islam is one of the most obvious victims of aggressions under the pretext of freedom of expression." "It is regrettable that there are false translations and interpretations of the freedom of expression," the Saudi delegation told the council, adding that no culture should incite to religious hatred by attacking sacred teachings."

source source. highlighting mine.

Just business as usual for those that claim to be working at home and abroad to protect your rights .

I found this quote of interest:"It is regrettable that there are false translations and interpretations of the freedom of expression.." Sounds like something Warren Kinsella might say doesn't it?

-------

Edit to title (thanks Red) and my new tag line.

Free speech now, spelling later!

I call BS

I call BullSh#t on the new Liberal ad (found here)

From the ad comes this statement "They said he couldn't do it" and my question to ANY Liberal Party official, Liberal supporter, members of the media or just about anyone else is:

Who exactly said that?

I will not ask what "it" means exactly so not to cloud the issue any more than needed, but if you do have an answer to the above feel free to set me straight about this little piece of propaganda.

Please provide links, quotes, sources, napkins or anything else that may be relevant to support this official statement from the Liberal Party of Canada.

------------------------

Speaking of "it". What was accomplished during the Montreal climate change conference? Read the press release here. The Invisible Hand nails it here. More talk, more study, more of just about everything that the Liberals are famous for, including a lack of actually getting anything done.

What you will not hear in question period

Here is something that I doubt we will be hearing from any opposition member in oral questions.

Mr. Speaker, this neocon government refuses to do the right thing and abide by our international and treaty obligations. When will this government do as the UN has asked them to do and shut down the safe injection site in Vancouver and restore Canada's reputation on the international stage?

From the article:

UNITED NATIONS - The UN's drug control agency is to warn Tony Clement, the Health Minister, that Canada is flouting international drug control treaties by enabling illicit drug use at a safe injection site in Vancouver and through drug-paraphernalia giveaways elsewhere.

Mr. Clement will be urged to shut down the initiatives, which the agency says effectively condone the use of drugs that Canada has agreed in an international forum are banned without a prescription......

"In a way [Canada] is encouraging illicit trafficking," Zhu Li-Qin, chief of the Convention Evaluation Section of the UN's International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), said from the agency's headquarters in Vienna.

For those playing along at home lets recap the position of the left:

Kyoto obligations good, NATO obligations bad.

UN obligations good, err bad, err just screw it and do as we say.