Why was Radwanski sacked
Canadian Privacy commissioner Radwanski was forced to resign. Officially, he was reproached lavish travel and restaurant spendings. Radwanski claims that the real reason is his courageous defense of Privacy rights of Canadians and his speaking against government policies. I do not know the real reasons, but I am sure that his expenses are NOT the REAL reason for his sacking. I am sure, if you check other people in similar positions (Language Commissioner, Information Commissioner, Correctional Investigator, etc.) you will, find their spendings to be of the same nature.
Improper expenses is the national all-Canadian trick always used when administration wants to get rid of an employee. Back in 1994, 3 main crooks at Concordia University (M.N.S. Swamy, T.S. Sankar and S. Sankar) were fired under exactly the same pretext: improper spendings. Do you believe that the only 3 people in Concordia guilty of improper spendings were those I accused of fraud?
Canada's middle name is Hypocrisy. It has, on paper, the best laws imaginable; there are numerous watchdogs in every field (Medical care, Access to Information, Privacy, Language, Human Rights, Correctional Investigator, etc.) In reality, all these watchdogs are no more than lap-dogs. They all play a spectacle: they publish reports where they criticize those they oversee, but in their everyday activities, they cover-up everywhere.
Here are some examples. Back in 1994, guard Amyot has deliberately broken my ribs in Donnacona jail. The whole thing was videotaped. When I asked to see the tape, jailers refused, citing danger to jail security. Bruce Philips, who was then Privacy Commissioner, supported jailers. When I asked, how would my viewing of myself endanger jail security, his office refused to discuss it with me. Radwanski’s office supported me in this matter; jailers then lied that they could not find the tape and Radwanski’s office refused to examine jailers under oath.
Radwanski is certainly not an honest man, but he was not fired for being dishonest, he was fired because he was not sufficiently dishonest for his job, not as dishonest as Philips was.
Did CSIS know about the Air India conspiracy?
It was reported in the media that CSIS knew well in advance about the conspiracy to blow up Air India plane and to kill several hundred humans, but did nothing to prevent this tragedy, because they did not want to blow the cover of their informant. This makes little sense: CSIS could have very well prevented killing of innocent people without compromising their informant. Indeed, the bomb in the suitcase could have been discovered "by accident" during routine luggage check. Exactly the same way, by accident, Rassam was arrested at the US border.
So, does it mean that CSIS did NOT know about the conspiracy? Not at all. Ask yourself a very simple question: what is more beneficial for to let it proceed? If they stop the killing, they would get some praise, but nobody would give them a penny more, because they are obviously capable to do their job with the present financing. On the other hand, when several hundred innocent people are killed, CSIS can claim that they are underfunded and overworked, that they need more money and people, and if they do not get it, hundreds more will be killed.
The same can be said about FBI (CIA) and 9/11: of course they knew about coming attack and did nothing, because this attack was the best thing which might happen: their funding increase was in BILLIONS. The “60 Minutes" show reported that Israeli agents also knew about coming attack and took positions on the New Jersey side to make photos of themselves, with burning towers in the background.
Idiots at the Supreme Court
Back in 1986, US Supreme Court decided in its wisdom that it was OK to arrest people for a homosexual act. Recently, the same court reversed itself; majority finally understood that it was none of government business what 2 consenting adults are doing in their bedroom. There is though a vocal minority of idiots, who wrote in their dissenting opinion that tremendous horrors are to follow: legality of homosexual marriages, polygamy and bestiality. Wow! Can we as society survive if a woman would have 2 husbands or a man 2 wives? Can we sleep at night, knowing that there is a woman somewhere having sex with her donkey and nobody is dragging her to jail?
We claim to be a tolerant society; we deplore Taliban, who forced women to cover up their faces and punish those who did not. Are we really that different? Taliban had its "morality laws" and punished those who did not follow them; we have our "morality laws" and punish those who do not follow them. Our society is as intolerant as that of Taliban, except that our limit of tolerance is different. In Taliban's perception, a woman showing her face is the same as our perception of a woman showing her breasts. There is no real reason to prohibit either of them.
I often hear the argument that we need to protect our children from pornography. I remember being a child, I saw naked men and women, and their genitals at that time were of no interest to me, so seeing them would affect me no more than looking at their faces. Really small children can not be harmed by pornography, they are just not interested. Bigger children can learn a lot from watching it. All animal "children" watch pornography and it does not harm them, on the contrary, there are species which can not procreate if they did not watch their parents having sex.
Freedom of speech should mean freedom of repugnant speech, "good"
speech never needed protection. Tolerance should mean tolerance of
behaviour which seems to us repugnant, as long as nobody is harmed in the
process. Bestiality, as repugnant as it looks to me, should not be a crime,
unless it can be classified as cruelty to animals.
Ask proper questions
In his State of the Union speech, Bush has said, that Iraq has attempted to
buy uranium from an African country. Now he admits the statement was
false. Media even say that this opinion was based on forged
documents. It is interesting to see, how media avoid asking proper
questions. In this particular case, if the documents were forged, is not
it appropriate to ask: forged by whom? Another question to ask: who
ordered the forgery to be made? Guess why the media does not ask these
During the Fourth of July celebration, there was a lot of talk about the so-called unalienable rights enjoyed by Americans. These allegedly are: the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The word "unalienable" means something which can not be taken away. Let us see, if those rights are really unalienable.
The right to life means that your government can not kill you, unless you were sentenced by the jury of your peers. Just recently, Bush has killed 7 human beings in Yemen using unmanned aircraft. He obviously breached their right to life. He acted as a judge and executioner. This is certainly against the Constitution, but Bush does not give a damn.
The right to liberty means that you can not be deprived of your liberty, and if you are arrested, you should be quickly informed about the reasons and be given assistance of a lawyer. You have the right to be tried by the jury of your peers in the open court, you have the right to see all the evidence against you, etc. All this is being denied to thousands of people in full view of the nation and with support of corrupt judges, who swore to support the Constitution. People are thrown in jail, held incommunicado, even their names are kept secret.
Bush says that these people are terrorists and do not deserve regular rights. Bush forgot a little thing: they are not guilty of anything until convicted by the jury of their peers. This is exactly what Stalin did: he called humans he wanted to kill "enemies of the people" and they were also held incommunicado, not entitled to any protection of the law.
And now about pursuit of happiness. You have the right to pursue
happiness, as long as it is a happiness of the allowed type. God forbid
if you are a homosexual and you are happy with another man, God forbid, if you
are a lesbian, God forbid if you are many other things. Just recently, I
have read about a man, whose idea of happiness was sucking children's tows. He
was jailed for 3 years. There is no doubt, the man is a pervert, but for
God's sake, how were children harmed? What kind of
crime is it? Sexual? Then we should modify the child pornography laws, including pictures of children's tows as forbidden pornography.
Well, you do not have ANY unalienable right.
It was reported that the war in Iraq costs US taxpayer almost $4 BILLION per month. I recall Reagan refusing to sign the Clean Air Act, because it would cost too much - $30 BILLION. It looks like US citizens could breath clean air several times over by now.
See the difference?
Two people were recently beaten by police into a coma: one in Quebec and one in Iran. The media wrote about Quebec case, that a man was arrested and some time later police noticed that he had a problem with breathing and rushed him to a hospital, where he was declared to be in a vegetative coma. Not even a hint about police misconduct in any shape or form.
The case in Iran has been immediately declared as the case of police beating. Iranian government promised investigation and the very next day declared that it was indeed the case of police beating and promised to punish those guilty of beating. Our police is still investigating and I am sure they will never admit beating. It will take months if not years to finish the Quebec investigation.
The media speaks every day about the Iranian case. After the initial announcement, not a word about Quebec police beating in the media. Today, July 20, 2003, I heard the announcement that the top Iranian prosecutor is to face criminal charges. Be sure, nobody will be charged in Quebec. We are a FREE country: police here is FREE to kill.
The main difference between a "democratic" and totalitarian state
When a totalitarian country like China wants to further limit civil liberties, it adopts a law and calls it "Anti-Subversive Act"; when a "democratic" country wants to further limit civil liberties, it calls its law "The Patriot's Act".
The main difference is in the level of hypocrisy.
Perverts of logical thinking
July 23, 2003, Oprah Show about miracles. One of the miracles: a
doctor, who stuttered all his life, invented a device, which allows him and
other stutterers to speak normally. Oprah's explanation: God, in his
eternal mercy, has deliberately given this doctor stuttering, so that he could
help others. Everybody in the audience nodding their heads at the wisdom
of this explanation. It seems to never cross their minds, that God, in
his eternal mercy, should not have invented stuttering in the first
place. Am I missing something?
At first, the media reported that there was a 4-hour fire-fight, then that there was a six-hour fire fight. I do not buy it: four people can not withstand even 15 minutes against several hundred soldiers, who have enough fire power to level the building. On the other hand, if we had 4 Americans, who were able to resist 200 soldiers, with tanks, helicopters and missiles for 4 hours, we would most certainly call them heroes. We have a woman, who did not resist at all, all her achievement was loosing her way and suffer her vehicle crash, and we call her a hero.
Americans were reproaching Lenin killing all the czar's family, and now they
are doing the same; czar was as bad as Saddam. Had they wanted to take
them alive, they certainly had the opportunity to do it. Americans
published the pictures of mutilated faces to “convince” Iraqis that Saddam sons
were dead. These pictures can convince of one thing: there is no
resemblance at all between "alive" picture and "dead"
pictures. I think the only reason for releasing the pictures was to upset
Questions nobody asks
We hear every day that at least one American soldier is killed and several
are wounded. It looks like Iraqis can do it with impunity. Why
can't Afghans do the same? Why do Palestinians need to kill themselves
and to kill civilians? Why can't they kill Israeli soldiers? Why nobody
is asking these questions? Anyone knows the answer?
Thousands years of tradition
People objecting to gay marriages revoke the argument of thousands years of tradition: for thousands years marriage was a union of a man and a woman, and this union has to be kept sacred. Nobody dares to tell them that human sacrifices and slavery have been also thousand of years of tradition. The same can be said about traditions of female mutilation, women's ineligibility to own a property, to vote, to get education, etc. There is almost no tradition in human history to be proud of. As far as sanctity of marriage is concern, one can hardly use this word for the present situation with over 50% of divorces and incalculable adulteries. (Gays one day will regret having won the right to marry).
The opponents of gay marriages are trying to horrify us with what to come:
marriage with dogs, incestuous marriages etc. Again, nobody dares to tell
them: so what? If Ms. X wants to marry her dog, why should this be
anyone's business (as long as the dog can bark something close to 'I
do')? Marriages between a brother and, a sister was historically
forbidden due to high chance of defective children, but since now we can
monitor and weed out the defects, there is no longer any reason to forbid such
marriages. I do not think any grandchild would want to marry a
grandparent, but again, if this happens, it is none of government business to
intervene and neither it is Joe Blow's business.
Who was the Zodiac killer
There was a show recently about the famous Zodiac killer, who killed people
for pleasure, wrote letters to newspapers where he bragged that police would
never find him. He was right: they still did not find him. The
reason: they are looking at the wrong place: among teachers or businessmen.
The key to his identity is in his statements that police would never find
him. Ask yourself a very simple question: how could he be so sure?
The answer is evident: he was one of our best, probably, the top
policeman. Who would dare to search there?
If you are an American and say that you are selling America abroad, they would understand that you are telling foreigners about virtues of your country. If you say the same thing in Russian, they will understand you literally: you are a spy selling state secrets to foreigners for money.
Is there any moral here?
Prostitutes and politicians
August 4, 2003, CBC show "Passionate eye" about a New Zealand
transsexual prostitute, who was elected a Member of Parliament. Everybody is
acting very surprised. If you look deeper, there is nothing to be
surprised: politicians ARE prostitutes.
About Dr. Kelly's suicide
On the surface, the facts look like this: Dr. Kelly was British specialist in weapons of mass destruction; he gave an interview to BBC, where he claimed that British government deliberately misrepresented the intelligence about Iraq. After BBC aired the information, Kelly was questioned by the parliamentarians. Several days later, he was found dead, with his wrists slashed. The media declared this a suicide; Blair ordered "independent" judicial inquiry.
Suppose, the above is true. What is there to investigate? A guy, who kills himself, Just because somebody said something unpleasant to him, is clearly insane, and there is nothing to investigate in the action of an insane person. It has been my experience, that when a so-called "democratic" government wants to cover-up something, they use the so--called "independent" inquiry. There is nothing really independent about this inquiry: government appoints the Chair, government writes the terms of reference, surely, they would be able to find a crook, who will cover-up for them. Indeed, Blair found Lord Hutton, who is known as "Mr. Cover-It-Up". There is a similar "specialist" in Canada – Hughes.
Hutton's behavior confirms his status: his first statement was to declare that he was in charge. Every political puppet starts with: "I am not a puppet". A person, who is not a puppet and is not perceived as a puppet, does not need this kind of statements. In his next appearance, Hutton revealed some details from Dr. Kelly suicide: his wristwatch was removed, and this detail was declared by Hutton as confirmation that Dr. Kelly indeed committed suicide.
Once again, if it was suicide, removing or not removing a watch proves nothing. On the other hand, if Blair thought, that Dr. Kelly knew too much and ordered to kill him, then obviously the murderers would do all the tricks to present it as a suicide. Suppose, they ambushed Dr. Kelly in the forest and incapacitated him. Then they removed his wristwatch and out his wrists. After an hour or so, Dr. Kelly is dead, and removed watch is presented to the public as a proof of a suicide. If Dr. Kelly really killed himself, he did it as a protest against something, and surely, he would have left a suicide note explaining this. He did not.
What is interesting, the media, who invent every nonsense scenario in the
case of any regular scandal, did not dare even to suggest that it was a murder,
rather than a suicide.