just a spot to post my rants, if you've ever been tempted to ask " whats he thinking?" its all here! ****
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
in defence of liberal, knowing, A liberal will get you killed!
A prof of mine started a course with this statement. And although he was absolutely correct, I still defend liberal as correct.
Of all the traits that can be ascribed to the term liberal, the one thing that must be for a person to be a liberal is a belief in “human rights”. That there is some intrinsic , right, truth, or justice, that stands above mans laws. In this way the criticism that “liberals have a new religion” is not all wrong. As having a “truth” that stands above mans law, has as its most close parallel those that hold a “religious truth”.
In this way the US constitution, and its affirmation that its “self evident that all men were created equal” can be seen as a pure liberal statement.
The thing is because we do actually believe that there is a “right” above mans laws, liberals will not respect mans law as the final decider.
For the “right to life” side, they actually consider a blastocyst, or an embryo, as a human. Then as liberal thinkers, they have no choice but to intervene or fail to conform to mans law. They really do need to defend the rights of those humans. So even as its currently the “political right” that is against abortion, their fight is a liberal one. The only separator for “the left” is that currently the left doesn't consider the embryo as human life.
So now to why will a liberal get you killed. While because we believe that human rights are above mans law, we cant sit back in good conscience and allow, a government, nation, religion, culture, or group, to behave in a way that contravenes our ideas. In this way we invite the the calls of “thought police”, and all the parallels to totalitarianism that's levelled against us.
The thing that the detractors don't seem to understand is that to a real liberal, the only real judgment we consider valid is, if in the face of a wrong are you a coward or a responder.
So while “the right” by definition are concerned with stability and maintaining the status quo, are not only willing but want nothing more than, to live and be left alone. Its us, the liberal who insists on interfering with others.
In order to be true to our beliefs, its us, the liberal, that has to force a change. We are the ones who need to invade another country, we are the ones who cant abide by anothers religion or heritage, when we see a wrong. And its this imperative to interfere that will get you killed. (Because others hate being interfered with).
Thing is the writer of this does believe in human rights. I will admit that we occasionally have “misunderstandings” , or as outsiders would say, “wrong ideas”. I look back in horror and realize it was ‘liberals’ who thought we needed to introduce the “savage” to our (at the time) “truth” of Catholicism. And now we feel the moral imperative to introduce peoples in the same area of our scepticism.
But as a liberal I do believe that there is truth above mans law. I try to temper my actions with the knowledge that, all humanities, (let alone my), logic is far from answers on most things. Because of that I try and keep my intrusions into others lives at a minimum. But I have to respond in some way. As a liberal I have to either accept myself a coward or take an action. I do have sympathy for all those who are being “put out” by our actions. They don't really care about, gays, trans, hats worn by religious follows, or 99% of the things that us liberals want to fight about. It must feel shitty to be told your grammar is suddenly wrong, or that people are calling you “hateful” for doing the same thing you've always done.
Just like the other side of the political spectrum we have our fair share of emotionals and gut thinkers. For all liberals, I’d like to apologize to anyone who was shit on by a non-thinker. Instead of saying “Hay that term is considered an insult now”, I’ve seen liberals act like you are the actual haters, and they have forgot (never really spent the thinking time to understand), that we are trying to actually answer to our “higher truth”.
Anyway following a liberal may get you killed. But as a liberal, I choose that above cowardice in the face “evil” I must choose action.
Friday, October 20, 2017
Why the Burka-Ban wont stand.
The Supreme Court of Canada (SCoC) ruled that Sikhs were required to wear hard hats even though it was a restriction of their religious freedoms. (The seminal case on this is Canadian National Railway Co. v. Bhinder from 1985.) The Court applied a 3 part test to see if the employees religious freedoms could rightly be infringed. This test is where I think the Quebec law will eventually fall. Unfortunately that means that some provincial worker will need to be fired for wearing the Hijab, and she will also have to have enough money to raise a legal complaint (justice ain't cheep in Canada).
The test for a bone fide occupational requirement (BFOR), has 3 steps the rule must pass before its considered a justifiable infringement on religious freedoms: (adapted from the above mentioned hardhat case.)
Now looking to the “burka ban” lets go over the test.
• Step 1: Was the rule about hard hats or respiratory protection adopted for a purpose that is rationally connected to the job (safety)?
• Step 2: Was the rule adopted in an honest and good faith belief that the standard is necessary for the fulfillment of that legitimate purpose (safety)?
• Step 3: Was the standard reasonably necessary to accomplish that legitimate purpose? Can the employer accommodate individual employees without imposing undue hardship upon the employer?
Keep in mind RCMP officers can wear the hijab, its going to be really hard for Quebec to argue that a kiosk worker cant do her job wearing the same thing.
*"we have other laws saying you cant be naked in public, how is this different?"
This is actually the argument Quebec is using to put the law into place. The mistake is that they are equating non-religious with anti-religious. The government needs to pass laws that apply to all citizens, it cannot promote or discriminate based on religious beliefs. Thats a Non-Religious stance. But by refusing to allow its workers to adhere to their religious beliefs while at work they are taking an Anti-religious stance. The claim that seeing a government worker wearing a religious item will make the average citizen falsely believe that the government is an agent of that religion is deeply condescending.
NOTE: Its been pointed out to me that I have used "Burka", and "Hijab" interchangeably and they are in fact different. The RCMP currently only allow the Hijab which does not cover the face.
I fell the rest of the argument still stands, if you correct my other uses of Hijab to the Burka I was thinking of. (Thanks Reese)
Sources:
National Post Quebec passes bill banning niqab, burka while receiving public services
CBC News RCMP allows Muslim women Mounties to wear hijab
Canadian Occupational Health and safety magazine /legal Clash of the titans
Tuesday, August 08, 2017
I dont understand Transgender
Friday, August 04, 2017
Here are 5 things to know to have a happy dating life
Friday, July 28, 2017
A message to Baby-boomers
After adjusting for inflation;A Collage Degree now cost many times more than you paid for a house and land (how long was your mortgage?)Jobs Pay a fraction of what they did. They are part time and and have little to no benefits.
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
sluts and Ice Cream
Friday, July 14, 2017
this system is FAIL
Thursday, June 22, 2017
Trigger Warning "Snowflakes"
I’ve known people who have suicided. And can clearly recall the emotional and mental state that myself and others were in during the aftermath. So when a coworker of mine was going through a suicide death in her family I made a note not to make comments or jokes around the subject. At least for a while. Because I’m not that kind of an ass-hole. At that point in time my coworker probably didn't have the emotional energy to discuss, dismiss, or otherwise deal with my general lack of couth.
In schools as the profs cant alter their entire curriculum or know the details of all the students lives, maybe a Trigger Warning sign is just the polite thing to do.
But manners be dammed, there is a better reason. I remember being in a class where I was paying over $700 to occupy my seat. I would participate in the discussions because that's a lot of money to me and I wanted to get as much value out of the course as I could.
Also, I so would wear a t-shirt with “CAUTION, TRIGGER WARNINGS” emblazoned on the front. if someone made me one.- XXL if your wondering
Thursday, June 15, 2017
Sinn Says Some- a response to the Republican mass shooting
Sunday, October 19, 2014
a letter to my Mom.. and to myself. Cause lets face it all letters are partially for the writer
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
this is not a rant about fashion, rather its a rant about music.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
the i-zombi Deceleration of Corporatist War.
Monday, May 24, 2010
listen to your heart?
Sunday, May 16, 2010
mess
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
i zombie (too)
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
i zombie (part one)
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
cellar door
My status as an Aboriginal has always been for the purpose of exclusion. I have been considered white or Native depending entirely what would serve the other persons ends, never my own. Once in grade 9 on a late Friday night I was walking home from a friend’s house. A truck with the cab and box full of drunken high school “”jocks” roared past me. They yelled “Fu-ing Indian” as they slammed on their brakes, piled out of the truck, and chased me down. I took a few hits and kicks before I was able to escape and jumped over a few fences, running through people’s yards. I made my way home by going through fields and parks trying to avoid road ways. I emerged from the last field a block from my house. As I passed the ally, a Blackfoot man named Darcy came out. He called me a “fu-ing whitey” and punched me a few times. As I was already sore, I ran. This night is just the most extreme case of a pattern that has followed my entire life. I was excluded from Whites along with the other Indians; and excluded from the Indians for being white. My high school friend, (name removed), finally told me she couldn’t be seen with me anymore because her other friends were accusing her of becoming an apple like me. An apple was someone who was red on the outside but white on the inside. The connotation was someone who had turned their back on their culture. Even as I was saddened, it was the first time I had felt included. At least they were able to see I was red.
I don’t feel white on the inside. I was just raised outside my culture. The only story I have to connect me is one my grandmother tells. She was adopted by a white couple and raised on the prairies. 70 Years ago the Indians would still occasionally go past with their travois. She tells me of how her mother would hide her in the cellar or a closet for fear that they would try to steal her back. Afterwards her mother would tell her about how they were bad people. And point to the fact they never took care of their horses properly. When she grew up she started trying to discover who her birth parents were. After years of looking, she hasn’t been able to find the truth. She’s been told the microfilm that the adoption records were put on to in the 60’s or 70’s have a thumb print distorting the area containing her information. She’s scoured old newspapers, taking clippings and trying to compare information. There are theories and speculation, but she remains a woman with no history.
On school records and government forms, they ask if you want to be recognised as an aboriginal. The next box asks for a status number. If you leave it blank, either your application disappears or you receive a phone call asking you for proof. The nice lady eventually offers to just “whiteout your mistake” and check the other box. You say “thank you”. And spend the rest of the day avoiding road ways, looking apprehensively at alleys.
They can’t steal you back, But your still locked in the cellar.