Every socialist / ‘big L’ liberal policy is at heart collectivist and anti individual freedom, requiring the coercive power of the state to enforce compliance from the citizenry.   Sadly, too many Canadians are ‘content’ with this and surrender their freedoms bit by bit….. 

Ghost of a Flea has more…

When Freedom Isn’t Free In Britain, compulsory virtue stifles individual liberty. 14 April 2010 

Liberal reformers, who might once have wished to extend the realm of liberty, now wish to restrict it in the name of compulsory political virtue. 

There was a perfect recent illustration of this in Britain. An evangelical Christian couple, the Wilkinsons, ran a bed-and-breakfast business in a place called Cookham. They refused a middle-aged homosexual couple, Michael Black and John Morgan, accommodation because they believed that homosexuality was wrong; it is condemned in the Bible. 

The spurned couple said that they felt like lepers; moreover, they felt that their legal rights, enshrined in the Equality Act of 2006, which makes it illegal to discriminate in the provision of services on the grounds of “sexual orientation,” had been infringed, and they complained to the police. As yet, no prosecution has followed. But shortly afterward a senior politician, Christopher Grayling, who might be a minister in the next government if David Cameron wins the forthcoming election, said that he thought that the owners of bed-and-breakfasts ought to be allowed to refuse homosexual couples if they so wished. 

From the furious denunciation that Grayling’s remarks attracted, you might have thought that he had advocated medieval punishments for homosexuals. Instead, he was merely pointing out that the law as it stands is tyrannical, and that in a free society not everyone will make the same moral judgments.  It is a necessary condition of freedom that private citizens should be allowed to treat with, or to refuse to treat with, whomever they choose, on any grounds that they choose, including those that strike others as repellent.  Freedom is freedom, not the means by which everyone comes to precisely the same conclusion and conducts himself in precisely the same way. 



We know who you are. We know were you live….

May I recommend some reading for Mr ‘Gene from Greenpeace’?  Do pick up Arthur Koestler’s ‘Darkness at Noon’, not so much out of sympathy for fictional victim, rather it will very nicely demonstrate to you how to run show trials…..

Dear GreenPeace,

The true sign of a failed belief system is when its adherents, having failed to persuade the populace by reasoned debate, resort instead to violence. It matters not if we are speaking of the millions who died under Communism’s jackboot while their economy disintegrated, or of those murdered by Fascists determined to establish order through racial superiority, or of the brutal repression of the Dark Ages or of Islamic extremists raising their children to become suicide bombers.

Odd, when I donated to MSF they didn’t have to resort to threats to convince me……

Off to the dustbins of history with you my little apparatchiks….

Is there some contest to see how silly a complaint Canada’s human-rights commissions will try to take seriously, asks the Montreal Gazette.    But hey, when all of the world’s problems can be distilled down to whether the state can enforce comedy, or whether restaurants must simultaneously comply with sanitation codes yet reserve the ‘right’ for  employees to decide as they see fit to wash their hands, how much sillier can it get?   Quite a bit more apparently.   The problem, of course is that for the victim – and I mean the poor sap dragged through the process – it isn’t silly.  It is often downright Kafkaesque; arbitrary, vicious and entirely an affront to common law. 
Time to see off these cheerless, soulless, fun crushing taxpayer-funded parasitical ‘offices’.  Write to your MP (and MLA’s for the provincial counterparts) and demand that Canada’s Human Rights Commission be shuttered and their commissars put out to pasture.

Big Numbers

In light of our ‘fiscally responsible’ ‘onservative government shovelling money out the door for various infrastructure projects, the failure of McGinty’s ehealth ontario initiative, and of course the impending cornucopia of largess known as Obamacare being offered up in the USA, it is worth re-reading Guns, Fraud, and Big Numbers in Canada to remind ourselves of just how often our political masters screw up basic math:

 The following essay won the Letter of the Week award on 2004-02-24 at Mark Steyn’s web site, . In honour thereof, Mr. Steyn graciously sent me a copy of his “The Face of the Tiger”, autographed: “Congratulations. A Great Letter.” ]

My Fellow Canadian ~

I once read an excellent Isaac Asimov non-fiction essay on really big numbers. Humans are in general really bad at understanding big numbers. Because of my math / science / engineering background, I’m maybe a bit better than average, but I’m no Asimov. I have though learned a few ways to help me better understand big numbers, so that I can better deal with them when I need to. This essay shows how some of those methods work.

The initial Government of Canada estimate for the gun registry database system was $1 million. Technically, I think that’s probably a bit low. Based on my on three decades of work in the field of distributed multi-user database transaction processing systems like the registry, and on some systems I’m currently working on which are of that type, I think $3 million would have been a better estimate.

If someone from the Government of Canada can provide me with a simple accounting showing some component of the system that I’ve missed, I’d be more than happy to adjust my analysis of the situation to take that data into account. My current analysis is based on the numbers I have collected from the public media over the last few years.

Given how important it is for state monopolies to serve citizens to the highest possible ethical standard, let’s throw in a factor of three-ish over my base estimate and call it $10 million, to be as careful as possible.

Now, say you had such a $10 million contract with some customers. And then, say you spent three times that: $30 million. Does it occur to you that your customers (in this case, we citizens) might be, oh, shall we say, somewhat angry? Ok, let’s say it’s another factor of three: $90 million. How are your customers doing now? Fine. Let’s throw in another factor of three, so we’re now up to $270 million. How angry are your customers now? In more primitive times than we live in, would you still be alive? But wait, there’s more. How much would we pay for another factor of three? Oh, about $810 million. Say, that’s interesting, the gun registry database system has, according to the CBC, cost $750 million.

It didn’t cost 3 times as much. Or 3 times 3 times as much. Or 3 times 3 times 3 times as much. It cost 3 times 3 times 3 times 3 times as much.
Continue reading