Get this:
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Canada actually showed that there just might be some hope for us yet. In this time of rampant fear-mongering, hysteria and paranoia-du-jour, the Supreme Court actually showed that they do indeed still have heads on their shoulders, and that those wonderful Santa Claus get-ups that they like to wear are more likely the result of an honest fashion faux paux than the result of any serious, biologically rooted, cognitive deficiencies on their part.
Yes, in an act of ultra-common sense, the Supreme Court of Canada actually found that it’s probably not a good idea for the government to have the power to hold “someone” who is suspected of “something” indefinitely without letting anyone (including the “someone” being held) know what it is that they are suspected of, and being held for. Makes sense, no? …well, it should, to anyone with half a freakin’ brain in their skulls!
I mean, it’s not difficult to figure out is it? Most countries that have existed throughout history, where such activity, which the Supreme Court of Canada has just ruled against, is the norm, have been pretty unpleasant places to live. Most countries that have employed enforced, legal restrictions against such activities have been relatively nice places to live. The ability for a government to engage in such action is usually seen as nothing short of a defining characteristic of such horrid places as Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, or even Iraq under Baathist rule. Countries that employ strict limitations on such abilities by the government bring to mind places like Canada, pre-Bush U.S.A., The U.K., certain Scandinavian countries, etc. — I.e. places that put real value in silly things like liberty, human rights, freedom, and real security, well-being, and general feelgooditude an livewelliness of the people.
I mean, it’s just common sense, isn’t it? Nobody with half a brain in their head, who wasn’t either a hopeless, deluded paranoid mess, or had a severe hate-on for individual liberty and freedom, could honestly believe that the choice to keep the government from the ability to wield such gross, unfettered, unchecked power over the people and their freedoms and liberty is a bad thing right? Anyone claiming such a thing would have to either be a moron, or just plain crazy, right?
None the less, there seems to be many on the right that are upset with this ruling! They are venting their displeasure on right-wing blogs such as: Canadian Blue Lemons, Civitatensis, Dr. Roy, Mesopotamia West, and others.
I’m afraid that this might be it. Tolerance, itself, of these far-right wacko nut-bars may no longer be tolerable. There can be no further question: These people are retarded, dangerous, paranoid, deluded, fear-mongering, peace loathing, freedom hating psychos! I fail to see how any reasonable, rational, intelligent person can, with a straight face, argue the opposite any longer. These people don’t just hold a differing opinion — they hold an IDIOTIC opinion. Some opinions aren’t just merely an alternative opinion, deserving of just as much respect as any other, some opinions are STUPID opinions that just don’t deserve to be taken seriously. And, some of these stupid opinions are so stupid that those holding them are deserving of contempt and ridicule. These people pose a very real threat to our very way of life. There can be no further denials: Their vision of a Utopian Canada is based on a model of the tyrannical banana republic, ruled by the sole authority of El Presidente himself. They are sick. They need help. They are dangerous. They are ignorant. They are uninformed. They are a blight. I can not see how a thinking person can any longer argue otherwise.
…by the way… I now own the domain ‘TheRightWingSucks.Com’ What should I do with it?
4 Comments
And, who said they shouldn’t be checked out?
Since there is actually no real, organized body that exists anywhere in the world known as “Al Qaida”, I really doubt that’s the case. I think what you probably meant to say is that they have evidenced connections to various terrorist groups. But, this is beside the point, and I digress. The point is: If the government has no onus on them to release any information to anyone regarding why these people are suspected and being held, then how do you know they have evidenced connections to anything? You just trust the government to do what’s right all of the time? And, if so, your reasoning for this is what? Their long, flawless, angelic-like history of, in every circumstance, always acting in nothing but the absolute best interest of the people and conducting themselves solely in nothing but the most impeccably just and honorable manner?
Do you want to deny these suspects access to the country on suspicion alone? Fine by me. In most cases I’d have no problem with that. Turn them around and send them back to where they came from. If you want to detain them for a reasonable period, while giving them ample resource and ability to defend their innocence, fine. But, if you want to lock them up in a jail cell and tell them they’re going to rot in there until we say so, and they can not defend their innocence, and nobody can know why they are being subjected to such treatment, and there’s just nothing they can do about it, that’s willful persecution of the innocent. And, that is evil. Canada is not about committing acts of evil against people. There HAS to be checks in place to make sure that WE aren’t the real guilty parties in any given case.
Well, if I had a dorm, I wouldn’t want them blowing it up, just as I also wouldn’t want them blowing up your rooming house. But, just because the government suspects someone of something doesn’t make them guilty. And, if an innocent person suffers unreasonable punishment at the hands of the government, on the grounds of nothing more than suspicion, then it is the government that has committed the crime. That’s why we adopted such wacky ideas as habeas corpus – to protect the innocent, and to make sure that crimes couldn’t be perpetrated by the state against innocent people. If you throw that out, then you are willing to accept the willful persecution of innocent people. No person with any significant sense of morality can accept the willful persecution of innocents.
Really? Good for you. I, on the other hand, believe in doing what is right, just, and moral, no matter who the responsible party is that brings it about.
You want to talk about pissed off? Your Mom was ten times more pissed off when I called to tell her I couldn’t pick her up that night for our weekly ‘thang’, ’cause I didn’t have any wheels! Jeesh! She was fuming!
By the way, your willingness to make judgments based on a total absence of fact – re: my age – I believe speaks volumes about why you appear to see the world the way you do.
Derek, Bro…
I’m all for rights. I’m just concerned about people who think its a good idea to slaughter us in huge numbers to be checked out.
Every one of those guys who are being held under security certificates have evidenced connections to Al Qaida.
You want them blowing up your dorm?
I believe in the authority of our elected officials and that this should not be diminished by appointed judges (whether they’re Liberal sluts or Conservative sluts).
But ultimately I think you’re just pissed off at your Dad for not letting you use the car.
What sense does that make? I’m the one that’s happy that people’s rights are being protected. You’re the one that’s apparently angry about it. I don’t think anyone should be restricted from saying anything. You, however, seem to think its ok if certain people are imprisoned indefinitely, without any real recourse, if they happen to have said something that the government has deemed dangerous. You’re the one that’s obviously against free speech. If you think that the government should have the power to lock people up indefinitely, and not have to tell anyone why they’re being locked up, then you oppose freedom of speech. It’s that simple. If there is no way to keep checks on the government’s reasoning for imprisoning people, then there’s no way to know that the reasoning was not for the expression of ideas that the government found disagreeable. If you are ok with that, then YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Period. End of story.
If that was the extent of my vocabulary, then wouldn’t it necessarily be the best I could do?!?!?
If you would see human beings locked up solely by government decree, while being denied the right or ability to adequately defend themselves, then you ARE a retard, you ARE sick, you ARE dangerous, you ARE ignorant, you ARE uninformed, and you ARE a blight. That’s just stone-cold fact. I’ll make no apologies for it.
So tell us what you really think.
Ya see, we were protected with a right to free speech long before the Charter.
I guess you would see this right removed.
Retard, sick, dangerous, ignorant, uninformed,a blight.
Is this the best you can do or the extent of your vocabulary?