About Ann Coulter and the University of Ottawa

25 03 2010

The media is blowing this up right now and everyone is leaving out bit of information as per usual.

Let’s get some things straight:

Ann Coulter, Right-wing American Pundint, was invited by the Conservative students group at the University of Ottawa to speak publicly.

The Provost of the university sent Ann an email warning her about free speech laws in Canada, which differ from those in the U.S.

On the day of the speech, large crowds filled the lobby outside of the small room in which Ann was supposed to speak. The police said that they would not be able to ensure her safety because of the size of the crowds. The decision was left to Ann and her body guards whether or not to follow through with the talk.

The University of Ottawa did not cancel Ann’s speech.

Ann’s body guard cancelled the speech.

Was it right to shout down Ann and prevent her speech from happening? Not really, though, protesters have the same rights to yell what they want as Ann has to say what she wants.

Ann Coulter seems to me to be a highly paid actor. She says things that she knows will seriously upset people because it gets her attention and therefore, it gets her money. This aside though, she should still be allowed to speak. By disallowing this, protesters at the University of Ottawa have given themselves a bad name. We saw the same things happen to a number of protesters in Copenhagen in December. Lets not paint them all with the same brush though. Ann Coulter does not represent the majority of the right. Loud and rambuncious protestors do not represent the majority of the left.

Thanks to the Ottawa Citizen for writing an in depth article explaining this issue. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Organizers+university+cancelled+Coulter/2721580/story.html

No thanks to the Toronto Star for skimming and skewing. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/785037–coulter-s-right-to-free-speech-defended


Animal Rights Activists Cross the Line

6 08 2009
From: Indymedia UK, 2009
From: Indymedia UK, 2009

While I support some animal rights activists, at least one militant group has reemerged and crossed the line of  activism and moved into shameful desecration. Last week, the grave of the family of Novartis Chief Executive Daniel Vasella was vandalized. Spray paint was used to write ‘Drop HLS Now” on the grave of Vasella’s parents. Additionally, two wooden crosses were planted in the ground next to the tombstone – media sources say the the crosses bear the names of Vasella and his wife, however, this has not been confirmed. Additionally, the acronym SHAC – Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty – was painted and the urn containing Vasella’s mother’s ashes was stolen.

Some of the back story now: Novartis is a large pharmaceutical company that uses the Huntingdon Life Sciences company for animal testing of products before they are made available to the public. The SHAC group has a history of protesting Novartis and Huntingdon Life Sciences for their involvement with animal testing. SHAC has currently denied any responsibility for the blatant attack on Vasella and his family.

Whether or not animals are mistreated at Huntingdon is entirely beside the point here. Animal rights activists seem to make complete fools out of themselves from time to time. This is one of those times. In fact, this is quite beyond foolish. This is disgusting. You don’t deface someone’s grave for God’s sake, and you definitely don’t deface the grave of someone’s parents just because you don’t like what they are doing. And stealing the ashes of Vasella’s mother? I can’t even comment on that. It’s sick. It’s twisted. It’s disgusting. This action is totally counter-productive. These types of actions just make people angry. How do you ever intend to have people agree with your beliefs when they hate you out of principle because of all the stupid, foolish, or annoying things you’ve done.

I’m aware that I am ranting and possibly missing numerous parts of this story, but the point remains that vandalising the resting place of the dead is sub-human. Using Vasella’s dead parents as leverage for changing corporate policies is wrong. Absolutely, 100 percent wrong. I’m not blaming the SHAC, because for all we know it could have been anyone just trying to gain broader media exposure. We’ll have to wait for the arrest and the police report before placing any blame.

From: Cartoonstock, 2009

From: Cartoonstock, 2009

I am increasingly fed up with animal rights activists though. PETA trades sexism for animal rights with their ‘I’d rather go naked’ and ‘State of the Union: Undress’ campaigns; SHAC has smashed the windows of homeowners and spread rumours that a company manager was an alleged rapist; and the ALF (Animal Liberation Front) has planted homemade bombs on doorsteps and got itself listed as domestic terrorists in the United States. There have simply got to be better ways of dealing with these issues. Violence only leads to fear, not compassionate change.




To all Global Warming Dissenters

8 07 2009
From: CBC, 2009

From: CBC, 2009

This morning there was an article in the CBC about the G8 meeting in Italy. One of the issues of course is climate change. One reader posted this about global warming:

“the whole CO2 scam is the greatest distraction from the real problems of economic globalization and human enslavement going. All these elite central bankers are set up to be collecting the carbon tax anyway. check out the second draft of the trillions dollars bailout bill (scam) where they have set themselves up.
You got to love they way these guys play both sides of the debate.
meanwhile future generations have been condemmed into economic slavery.

Even if you believe that CO2 is causing global warming you better take a good look at sattalite maps of China’ and wonder how a carbon tax (life tax) on working men and women of the west is going to solve this problem as their factories in communist china are exempt from all this enviormental is david suzukis tax free foundation asking you to boycott cheap goods from China??? Of course not!

Meanwhile you may have notice the earth has actually been getting colder since 2001. due to the Sun’s solar flare cycling down again.
yes that right the SUN (that big ball of fire in the sky ?) makes the earth heat up………now throw me in jail for being a heritic.
this is why they quickly changed the slogan from “global warming” to “climate change”
I think themost interesting technique used in this scam is the way it also promotes the religons of self loathing and nilislims so when these elites do put the screws into you and your desendants you will comply willingly.
oldest trick in the book used time and time again to herd humans.

google “great global warming swindle”

To which I replied:

“Dear NickKakyakas:

You can refute ‘global warming’ all you want. That’s fine with me if there are people who don’t believe it. But there are many undeniable problems related to our environment that effect us right now. Sprawl has increased the rates of obesity tenfold, which increases things like heart disease. The chemicals we’ve been using on our food and in our goods have created a cancer plague that is one of the greatest killers known to man. Air pollution in nearly all of our urban centres has greatly increased asthma cases. All of these things put an incredible strain on our healthcare system as well as the families of millions who suffer from these ailments. Our lakes are all contaminated by chemicalized storm run-off due to our incistence on using concrete and pavement for everything, due to dumping of so much waste without proper attention to possible leaks, and due to unsustainable agricultural practices both with meats and veggies. I urge you to take a look at these real problems and help us out with what are true problems that effect us all this minute rather than bash the ambiguous term of ‘climate change’. At least by creating this global phemnomenon, awareness has been raised about environmental issues in general, whether the world is actually warming towards destruction or not.”

My point I think is quite clear. Whether or not you believe in global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it. There are very serious environmental problems that our entire world society are confronted with and will only get worse unless we begin solving these problems.

This is the CBC article: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/07/08/g8-summit-italy564.html?ref=rss

Toxic Ecuador: Update

4 07 2009
From: The Economist, 2009

From: The Economist, 2009

Some more details about the lawsuit taking place between Ecuadorian citizens and Chevron (see my other post for more details):

As we already know, Texaco was operating in Ecuador from the 1960’s up until 1992. From 1977 to 1992, they were in partnership with Petroecuador, a state-owned oil company. After this time, Petroecuador took full ownership of the operation. The current lawsuit began in 1993, when lawyers representing 30, 000 Ecuadorians from the area, brought the case to a New York arguing that Texaco dumped toxic oil waste in hundreds of pits and failed to clean up after pulling out of the operation. These pits were said to have caused health problems among the residents of the area, as well as damage to the jungle. Additionaly, they argued that Texaco should compensate those residents for their displacement due to the conditions created by oil waste. U.S. courts rejected the claims 3 times saying that they had no jurisdiction over the issue. Texaco eventually agreed to clean up their share of the site, likely for publicity reasons. This resulted in $40 million being spent on the clean-up of 161 pits. The government signed off on this clean-up thereby releasing Texaco from any further liability. Petroecuador never cleaned up it’s share of the pits.

Now the $27.3 billion lawsuit has been relaunched against Chevron, who bought out Texaco in 2001. The lawsuit has been relaunched for a number of different reasons. Mainly, a new Environmental Law has been passed in Ecuador which should give the plaintiffs more leverage against Chevron even though the law doesn’t deal with past actions. New evidence has come to the fore which has lead to charges of fraud against 7 senior officials who signed the agreement releasing Texaco of liability, as well as two of Chevron’s Ecuadorian Lawyers. Also, we know that the Ecuadorian court objected to the signed agreement on the basis that Texaco should have cleaned up all the pits because it was the actual operator of the drilling operation and therefore had control over how the waste was disposed of.

Now here we are still wondering where Petroecuador really stands in this. Were they continuing to pollute between 1993 and now? Was it because of Petroecuador that Texaco was given the go ahead, or even the orders to pollute this way? Was such carelessness with regard to clean-up giving Petroecuador a load of extra cash and therefore a reason to promote this kind of behavior? Are the plaintiffs afraid to go after them because they are a government-run company?

From: Planetsave.com, 2009

From: Planetsave.com, 2009

Since 2006, Petroecuador has reported 117 oil spills in the Ecuadorian Amazon. They aren’t even the only ones though, Canadian company EnCana has been there too, spilling oil. In a 2003 documentary calling Between Midnight and the Rooster’s Crow, a citizen staging a peacepul protest against such oil giants is shot by Ecuadorian officials. These officials are then rushed off the scene by EnCana. Many companies are responsible for a lot of environmental damage in Ecuador. The biggest problem I see here, is who else but the Ecuadorian government, who since 2003, the time of the construction of their largest pipeline, have been trying to get foreign oil companies out of the country in order to run the show themselves. Here though, is another problem. They don’t have enough money themselves to run the whole show.

So..what seems to be happening? The plaintiffs are going after the only company they can, and by the looks of it, the only company that has a chance of cleaning up the mess. Is it fair, probably not. Does it need to be done? This is questionable, as it seems likely that pollution by Petroecuador will continue within the country even after Chevron cleans up the mess, that is IF Chevron cleans it up. And with 50 percent of Ecuador’s national budget being funded by oil production, it doesn’t look like change will come until the oil is gone and there is no rainforest left to exploit.

The Economist article: http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13707679

The San Fransisco Chronicle Article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/day?blogid=95&year=2009&month=05&day=07&cat=

And here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/08/13/MNGHB86B4V1.DTL

all the updates at: http://amazondefensecoalition.wordpress.com/