Right here.

What’s it mean?

You know damn well what it means.

Comments (31)

Quote:

“One of the two men accused of an al Qaeda-backed plan to derail a passenger train in Canada questioned the authority of Canadian law to judge him, telling a court on Wednesday that the criminal code is imperfect and is not a holy book.

Chiheb Esseghaier, a Tunisian-born PhD student, faces charges that include conspiracy to murder and working with a terrorist group.

He and another suspect allegedly hoped to derail a passenger train, perhaps at a bridge near the U.S.-Canada border, with possible heavy loss of life, authorities said.

In a brief hearing where he was ordered back into custody, Esseghaier, 30, said the allegations against him are based on laws that are unreliable because they are not the work of God.

“All of these conclusions was taken out based on (the) Criminal Code,” he told a Toronto court. “The Criminal Code is not (a) holy book.”

I don’t see this as a big problem, personally. The holy Koran says, inter alia: “The punishment of those who [strive] for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides…: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”

The Koran is a holy book, unlike the Criminal Code, as he says. So, if he is indeed found guilty, Esseghaier seems to be expressing enthusiastic and unambiguous support for the execution, crucifixion, or dismemberment options.  Exile is possible, too, but doesn’t really amount to “heavy punishment,” now, does it?

So, there you go.  Problem solved.

Comments (26)

Comments (20)

I actually watched CBC News last night, just to see the shiny new Justin Trudeau spot.  All I got was about five seconds of it, and then Chris Hall and Peter Mansbridge telling me what to think about it.  That made me turn off the TV.

Here, then, as a public service, is the ad in its entirety.  Decide for yourself what you think! To Hell with Hall!

 

What does Your Humble Narrator think about it, you ask? Well, it ain’t bad, but it ain’t epic, either. Here, again, are Warren’s Free Tips On How To Watch A Political Ad:

1. Watch it with the sound off.  TV is a visual medium.  When you force yourself to focus on only the pictures, Trudeau looks pretty good.  But when he’s tie-less, perched on the corner of the desk, and in the classroom setting, does he look however like a Prime Minister? Not yet.  More like a guy selling Registered Education Savings Plans.
2. Watch it with your emotional brain, not your logical brain.  As I wrote in Fight The Right, political decisions are mostly emotional.  Reason – if it plays any role at all – plays a supporting role. The emotional response the ad evokes is neutral: it doesn’t make you dislike Harper, necessarily, or like Trudeau.  If anything, my emotional response was: he looks young for his age.  That may or may not be a good thing.  For Obama 2008, it was good.
3. Watch it for the one thing it wants to tell you.  This is where I was a bit unclear.  Is its purpose to diss the Conservatives?  To promote Trudeau?  To raise money? To celebrate the continued use of Video Cassette Recorders in 2013? You got me.  If the objective was introduce Trudeau to the public as Liberal leader, it does that.  But the staccato, sentence-fragmenty delivery was off-putting, for me.

Anyway.  That, as I say, is just my take.  Take it or leave it.  Your reaction is more important, because you guys are normal, and I’m a political weirdo.

Comments are open, so fire away.

Comments (111)

One from a Westerner, here. And, from an Easterner, here.

The pan-Canadian consensus? Her goose is cooked.

The problem with the BC Liberal strategy is that they considered Christy Clark to be their key strength. When, in fact, she was their central weakness. She makes Kim Campbell circa 1993 look like the finest strategic mind since Talleyrand.

Adrian Dix is going to win.  It’ll be fine.

Comments (10)

There is no thing on Earth that I love as much as this thing. Spring has sprung!

Comments (8)

And who’s the first guy you see? The House Commie™, me!

Comments (16)

From: H.Gauthier – hugpete@videotron.ca
To: Warren.Kinsella@sunmedia.ca

you can spin all your bs on this loserrrrrrrr.like his old man that i met and hatedddddd.is a socialist, commie,parasite.and i will bet what money you have he will never ever be pm.count on it.PETER THE GREAT LIBERAL AND TRUDEAU HATERRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Comments (9)

Buy it now! Buy several copies!

Comments (2)

Quote:

“It’s unclear whether Anonymous’s decision to intervene was prompted by Kinsella’s online plea. (Kinsella suspects that Anons were working on the case before he spoke out.) Still, the fact that a public figure had called openly on the group attests to its growing stature in Canada. I first took an interest in Anonymous while reporting a feature about a new generation of online crime fighters who are second—guessing, upstaging, and competing with the police—and in the process, exposing flaws within the investigative systems. Anonymous’s OpJustice4Rehteah—which helped to create such a humiliating media flurry that the authorities agreed to reopen the case—is one of the most successful of these initiatives, and it marks a small turning point for hactivism in Canada. Anonymous, with its capriciousness and its wonky theatrics, will never be mainstream, but it is gaining a measure of credibility among people who might previously have written it off. What’s more, the sensitivity and cohesion with which Anons handled the Justice4Rehtaeh operation has called into question many popular assumptions about the movement—my own included.”

Worth a read.  Not worth a read?  Chris Selley, Dan Gardner or Parker Donham on the subject.  They didn’t know what the Hell they were talking about, and they still don’t.

Comments (8)