Well, at least we Americans can take some pride in the fact...

....that we are not Canadian.

A controversial Fringe Festival performance featuring two naked actors engaging in mayonnaise enemas and a sexual act on stage left some audience members in shock while others walked out of the theatre Friday night.

The show, called Hollywood Hen Pit, stars Doug Melnyk and Ian Mozdzen, who are known for their edgy performances, having raised eyebrows in 2011 with their Fringe play Monopoly Man Pit.

This year's performance is about the life of an aging Hollywood starlet, as performed by two nude men.

"What I saw were not one, not two, but three mayonnaise enemas," said Fringe Festival reviewer Michelle Palansky, who was in the audience Friday night.

"By the third time… I was like, you know, this is gratuitous. I do not need to see any more mayonnaise enemas for the rest of my lifetime."//

I was at that point before I read the article.

Satisfying your "Canadian Content RDA."

Latest outrage from the Socialist Great White North...

...Vancouver restaurant bans men from peeing standing up.

Socialists...first it's nationalized health care, and then the next thing you know it's this!

Infanticide or Murder.

SunNews' commentator Brian Lilley is bewildered by the lack of outrage over Canada's easy-going attitude to murdering babies.

Basically, the Canadian judicial system held that Fourth Trimester abortion is okay in Canada.

The guest explains that Canada's "infanticide" statute is anachronistic.

Breaking News from Soviet Canuckistan.

Canadian Broadcasting Standards Council bans Dire Strait's "Money for Nothing."

It was No. 1 in 1985, but it's unacceptable for Canadian eyes and ears today.


The Dire Straits song "Money for Nothing" was ruled by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council to be "extremely offensive" and thus inappropriate for airing on radio or television because it uses an anti-gay slur.

The Other McCain adds this commentary:

You know what’s an even more insulting slur? “Canadian.” Where I come from, buddy, them’s fightin’ words. Any faggot in Alabama would kick your ass if you called him a “Canadian.”

Heh.

Canadian Content.

Remember Juno Beach.

Secularism on Parade.

From the Great White North - home to a tolerant and polite people - comes this story:

Speaking at a recent pro-life conference in Quebec City, the Cardinal said that abortion is a "moral crime" and that it is unacceptable even in the case of rape. That's an extreme position by this country's standards: Only about 5% of Canadians oppose abortion in all circumstances. But, as a spokesman for the Quebec City Archdiocese later pointed out, the Cardinal wasn't saying anything new: Like many religious Christians, strictly observant Catholics typically regard all fetuses as carrying the divine spark of human life. And so they urge that the tragedy or rape should not be compounded by a second moral tragedy.


Not that you would know any of this from the freaked out reaction by many pro-choice politicians and pundits. Parti Quebecois leader Pauline Marois said she was "completely outraged" by the Cardinal's remarks. A columnist with Montreal's La Presse newspaper, Patrick Lagace, said he wished that the Cardinal "dies from a long and painful illness." Even Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Josee Verner -- whose international maternal-health policies the Cardinal supports -- declared that the man's remarks were "unacceptable."

When, exactly, did it become "unacceptable" for a man of faith to articulate his Church's position on a controversial bioethical issue? Are there any other issues that Ms. Marois, Mr. Lagace and Ms. Verner would like Christians to shut up about? Gay marriage? Stem cells? Pre-marital sex? Perhaps they should make a list, just so everyone can keep track.

For years now, this newspaper and other conservative outlets have been warning Canadians that the trend toward liberal dogmatism among much of Canada's political class -- buttressed by an out-of-control human-rights constabulary -- is serving to muzzle religious Christians who are doing nothing else than giving voice to their cherished beliefs. The appalling reaction to Cardinal Ouellet's speech demonstrates how serious the problem has become.

Signs of the Apocalypse.

Canadian Loonie hits parity with American Greenback.

Canadian currency isn't even real money, for heaven's sake. It's Monopoly money with pictures of furry and feathered woodland critters.

Liberal Fascism Watch - Canadian Content Edition

This is old news by now, but going into my "Holding Paper - Liberalism" file is the example of Ann Coulter being warned by Francois Houle - Provost of the University of Ottawa - that if she exercises that thing Anglophone's call "free speech," Canada may exercise that thing called "having her arrested."  Via Mark Shea here is Monsiur Houle's billet doux:

Dear Ms. Coulter,

I understand that you have been invited by University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives to speak at the University of Ottawa this coming Tuesday. We are, of course, always delighted to welcome speakers on our campus and hope that they will contribute positively to the meaningful exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of a great university campus. We have a great respect for freedom of expression in Canada, as well as on our campus, and view it as a fundamental freedom, as recognized by our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or “free speech”) in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here. You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind. There is a strong tradition in Canada, including at this University, of restraint, respect and consideration in expressing even provocative and controversial opinions and urge you to respect that Canadian tradition while on our campus. Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.

I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.

Sincerely,

François Houle
Vice-recteur aux études / Vice-President Academic and Provost
Université d’Ottawa / University of Ottawa
550, rue Cumberland Street
Ottawa (ON) K1N 6N5
téléphone / telephone : 613 562-5737
télécopieur / fax : 613 562-5103

Steyn observes:

I've no idea what Ann Coulter's reaction to this letter is, but I suspect it's "Go ahead, Princess Fairy Pants, make my day." M Houle would have a very hard time persuading the Ottawa police or the RCMP to lay criminal charges over an Ann Coulter speech because they realize, even if he doesn't, that Canada doesn't need to become even more of an international laughingstock in this area. More likely is a complaint to the Canadian and/or Ontario "Human Rights" Commissions. But you know something? I don't get the feeling they'd be eager to re-ignite the free speech wars on a nuclear scale. Think of Ezra's and my appearance in the House of Commons, and then imagine the scene when Miss Coulter testifies. So the threat is an empty one and M Houle seems to be being - oh, what's the "respectful and civil" way of putting it? - a posturing wanker.

And thus does the phrase "posturing wanker" enter my day-to-day lexicon.

Apparently, the forces of the tolerant and open-minded protested against Coulter and prevented her from speaking, which obviously enriches the "market place of ideas."  Here is a blogger's report on the evening:

At about 8:09, over an hour after the lecture was supposed to begin Ezra Levant finally got up to speak. He said that there were 2000 protesters outside and that it would not be physically safe for Ann Coulter to appear. Levant did however give a little mini-speech which included some stinging words about Francois Houle.


He noted that at Western Ontario the President had said that regardless of whether he agreed with Ann Coulter or not he welcomed the diversity of opinion and that although there were many students who disagreed with Coulter and some heckling it was under control and they were able to have a good dialogue. Here Houle basically gave the students the green light to make trouble for Ann Coulter and the whole thing had to be shut down. A fish rots from the head down. He also noted that this event will expose the rot in our Canadian culture when it comes to free speech.

The head of the International Free Press Society also spoke about how they took Kurt Westergaard to Yale and Princeton and never had to fear for his life there.

Here is another on-the-spot report.

Coulter wins, with the publicity this generates for her and the chance of making leftists look like fascists.

It's funny how this kind of thing tends to backfire like that.

Canadian Content

From the Great White North, where it is controversial not to die in the name of socialized medicine like a commoner.

The Higher Sodomy

Ontario students will be required to undergo homosexual indoctrination. 

Public school children in Hamilton, Ontario will not be permitted to withdraw from classes that promote homosexuality, according to the Hamilton Mountain News. At the same time, according to a leaked document obtained by a local journalist, teachers are being instructed to tell parents who object to the curriculum that “this is not about parent rights.”


At the end of January, the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB) hosted a professional development day dedicated to “equity” training, where they distributed a sheet to teachers with “quick responses” they can offer to parents who object to the school board's “anti-homophobia” curriculum.

And:

The sheet given to the HWDSB teachers specifies that teachers do not “condone” the removal of children from classes that deal with homosexuality. If told, “This is against our rights as parents to teach our own set of family values,” the board suggests teachers offer the following responses:

- “As teachers, we do not condone children being removed from our classes when we teach about Aboriginal People, people of color, people with disabilities or gays and lesbians.

- “You can teach your child your own values at home. Public schools teach everyone about respecting diversity and valuing everyone

- “This is not about parent rights. Children have the right to an inclusive education free from discrimination.”

Via Mark Shea

Political correctness run amok

Canada's "iconic" history magazine will be changing its name because of internet filters. It will henceforth be knows as "Canada's History" and will retire the name it has used for the last 70 years - the Beaver.

*Snicker*

Liberal Fascism

Time Immortal publishes Bishop Fred Henry's letter to Alberta's Premier on the Canadian Human Rights Commissions decision to strip Free Speech rights from critics of the homosexual agenda.

The Bishop writes:

Each judgment emanating out of our various human right commissions seems to be more brazen and bizarre than the one that preceded it. However, for inane stupidity and gross miscarriage of justice our own Alberta Human Rights Tribunal deserves to take first prize for its treatment of Stephen Boissoin.

June 2008: The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal fined Stephen Boissoin, $5,000.

Section 30 of the Alberta Human Rights Act states: “Evidence may be given before a human rights panel in any manner that the panel considers appropriate, and the panel is not bound by the rules of law respecting evidence in judicial proceedings.”

…

The tribunal effectively stripped Boissoin of his right to freedom of speech. “Mr. Boissoin . . . shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.”

…

The tribunal decided to extract a further pound of flesh by way of public humiliation. “Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. provide [Dr. Darren Lund] with a written apology for the article in the Red Deer Advocate which was the subject of this complaint.” What happens if Lund is not satisfied with the apology?

Mr. Premier, we have talked enough about the inadequate provisions of and appointment to the Alberta Human Rights Tribunals. It is time to repeal Section 3(1)(b) of the Alberta Human Rights Act and to protect the rights of religious freedom. Every person has the right to make public statements and participate in public debate on religious grounds.

Good luck to our neighbors in the Great White North.

America + 10 years = Canada

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has found that the author of a "letter to the editor" can be punished for inciting 'hate.'

Here is the decision.

Essentially, the author of the letter to the editor criticized the local public school system for teaching that homosexuality was normal in "strident" and "militaristic" terms. The fact that the critique was of local politics was a factor in finding liability, because it involved a "public" and not a "private" issue:

Mr. Boissoin’s letter is, on the face of it, a critique of the homosexual agenda which he alleged existed in the school system in Red Deer, Alberta. His statement that “our children are being victimized by repugnant and pre-mediated strategies,” his statement that “our children are being recruited, subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system, under the fraudulent guise of equal rights” is, in fact, a criticism of the school system in Alberta in Red Deer, which, in my view, is within the provincial domain. The reference to an agenda by teachers, politicians and lawyers is also a matter within the public provincial domain.

The Commissioner also linked the letter through "self-serving hearsay" to a situation where a 17 year old homosexual was beaten up:

While the evidence of the beating of the gay man two weeks after the publication of the letter was indirect, I find in addition, that there was sufficient nexus to conclude circumstantially, that the two matters may be connected. In that regard, I rely on the evidence of Mr. Douglas Robert Jones that homosexuals are a vulnerable population in society and are more vulnerable in settings like Red Deer, which is a smaller community. I also accept his evidence that homosexuals are marginalized in the community and that young people are more impressionable to letters like this than others. I also accept the evidence of Dr. Alderson, who reported that in reading Mr. Boissoin’s letter, it caused a surge of personal fear in himself and that he had talked to hundreds of people in the gay community about Mr. Boissoin’s letter and all were horrified and fearful. It was adduced into evidence that it was reported in the Red Deer Advocate that the 17 year old victim (at the time) did mention Mr. Boissoin’s letter as making him feel fearful. I also accept Dr. Alderson’s evidence that Mr. Boissoin’s letter was likely to expose gay persons to more hatred in the community and that the effects of hate literature is to increase the threat level to the physical safety of gays.

Here is how the magistrate described Boisson's testimony:

101. Mr. Boissoin under cross-examination admitted that he chose a war metaphor to start his letter with the statement: “war has been declared.” Mr. Boissoin further reports that the warfare he was speaking of was clearly a war of ideologies. Mr. Boissoin believed that readers of this article clearly understood that he was speaking of a political battle.

102. Mr. Boissoin admitted under cross-examination that the message of homosexuality being acceptable as follows:
And in my opinion, when you tell a young person to conclude that something is normal, necessary, acceptable and productive at mass, which I believe is scientifically proven to be very destructive, very dangerous, I believe, it is a horrendous atrocity.

103. Mr. Boissoin admitted under cross-examination that:
I believe the propagation of homosexuality as being normal, necessary, acceptable and productive to a young person is just as immoral under God, according to scripture, as pedophilia, common as drug dealing or any other sin.

104. Mr. Boissoin reported under cross-examination that he was motivated to write this letter because of his love for homosexuals.

Notice where the judge finds Boisson "admits" something and where he merely "reports" something?

< sarc>How could anyone ever suspect the judge of having a bias? < /sarc>

The fix was undoubtedly in when Boisson committed lese majestie against his robed masters of tolerance with this bit of "truth speaking to power":

108. Mr. Boissoin admitted under cross-examination that the Commission was referred to as a “kangaroo court” by either himself or the CCC.

Why would this testimony be relevant to the decision, unless the magistrate views an improperly submissive attitude to the HRC as evidence of the "badthink" of Boisson?

So, apparently, using strident language to make a point - strident language which does not call for violent or direct action - in a public setting is forbidden under Canadian law.

Interestingly, the putative position of the Canadian homosexual community as small and vulnerable justifies the decision - which may impose monetary fines against Boisson and a the Canadian Christian Coalition that he is affiliated with. Presumably, since the "Christian" community is not small or vulnerable, it doesn't get the same protection and homosexual activists can use all the strident and militaristic terms it wants to inveigh against traditional Christian values.

So, in the Alice in Wonderland world of Canada, a member of a "strong and invulnerable" group can be frozen out of public employment and harassed with government fines for advocating a public position.

In the real world, we tend to think that kind of thing is evidence of persecution and that the persecuted are actually the weak and vulnerable.

Welcome to the merry land of post-modernism.

[Via Samizdata]

Playing God in the Great White North.

The Manitoba College of Physicians and Surgeons has issued a statement endorsing the right of Canadian physicians to withdraw "life sustaining treatment" from patients over the objections of the patient's family.

"Life sustaining treatment" includes any treatment that sustains the life of a patient without curing the underlying condition. Thus, "life sustaining treatment" might include providing food and water, but might also include hygiene and shelter.

The physician's duty with respect to consulting with other doctors and the family varies on whether the "minimum goal of life sustaining treatment" is reasonably achievable. The "minimum goal" is defined as the "recovery of cerebral function" to a point where the patient is aware of the self or the environment.

A physician can decide to withdraw or withhold life sustaining treatment of patients for whom the minimum goal is not reasonably achievable. If that decision is made, the physician must consult with another physician and the family, however, if the conultation with the physician results in a concurrence in the decision to withhold or withdraw treatment, then the treatment can be withheld or withdrawn notwithstanding the family's objection, although the physician must give the family written and verbal notice of the time and date that treatment will be withheld.

A physician can also withhold treatment for patients who might achieve the "minimum goal" if the physician decides that secondary effects, such as pain and suffering, outweigh the benefits of achieving the "minimum goal." In that case, the family's objection to withholding or withrawing treatment requires the physician to transfer the care of the patient to another physician.

The College makes the following claim in its Statement:

3. The Manitoba Courts have recognized that physicians have the authority to make medical decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment from a patient without the consent of the patient or the patient’s family.

Baldly stated like that, that seems a most unusual and far-reaching proposition.

It may not be correct, however, as noted in this Volokh Conspiracy" post, although one has to wonder about what is motivating the Manitoba College to grab of god-like power over life and death.

Perhaps Mark Shea has an answer:

The Manitoban College of Physicians has recently come out and said that doctors have the right to euthanize anyone above the wishes of the family.

Nothing's certain, of course, but given the *enormous* pressure that us aging members of Generation Narcissus are going to exert on the social system as we start getting old and sick, my money is on the rising generation learning the valuable lesson we taught them: Kill the Inconvenient. Barring something unforeseen like a car accident or a bullet from a torture zealot, I think the odds are very high that I will be murdered in my hospital bed at the order of a bean counter in order to cut costs. I'm at the tail end of Generation Narcissus (born 1958). Long before I get old and weak, the main demographic bulge will have worked its way through the collapsing Soash Security system and cost enormous amounts on a workforce feeling the full effects of demographic winter. Something will have to give, and it will not, in all likelihood, be the fallen human heart. So we Baby Boomers will reap the harvest of death we have sown in our covenant with death. Initially, euthanasia will be sold as "choice". Then it will become peer pressure. Then duty. And finally it will become obligation under law.

Note, incidently, how the "minimum goal" of self-awareness is ultimately a red-herring. Doctors can decide to remove life-support for patients who can be returned to awareness if the doctor decides that negative consequences justify death. Right now, the negative consequences might be "pain and suffering" but what does that mean? After the imperialism of logical development works its magic, could pain and suffering include the psychological distress of living a "life not worth living"?

How about cost and expense? How about efficient use of limited resources?

Care to bet against it?

Likewise, doctors who decide that the continued care of patients capable of the "minimum goal" is not worth the effort are to transfer their patients to other doctors. This seems like a concession in the direction of erring on the side of life, but how long with that policy stay in effect?

The fact is that such a policy should not be necessary - Once upon a time the Hippocratic Oath set the policy of doing no harm to any patient.

Real Intolerance.


Ezra Levant explains that the last house of worship torched in Alberta was his synagogue.

Free Speech in One Easy Lesson.

Ezra Levant gives a Canadian bureaucrat a succinct explanation of what free speech means.



Well done!

"You're entitled to your opinion." "I wish that were a fact."

Another exchange between the HRC interrogator and Ezra Levant.

"Part Kafka, part Stalin."

The Western Standard's publisher's opening statement to the interrogation by the Alberta Human Rights Commission.



Soviet Canuckistan indeed!

Celine Dion is Number 7 with a bullet.

"The Beaver", a Canadian History magazine, has run a non-scientific poll to select "the worst Canadian ever."

The results are:

1. Pierre Trudeau
2. Chris Hannah
3. Henry Morgentaler
4. Brian Mulroney
5. Paul Bernardo & Karla Homolka
6. Stephen Harper
7. Céline Dion
8. Jean Chrétien
9. Clifford Olson
10. Conrad Black

You have to admire the wisdom of the number one selection.

Here's a comment thread on the Trudeau selection, which we offer to improve the "Canadian snark content" of this blog.

[Via Kathy Shaidle.]