Hooray! Binks is back with lots of fresh linkz

And commentary, too.

Enjoy.

But take his latest warning to heart about a new front opening in the battle for preventing government encroachment on our God-given liberties. He writes:

~ THE STATUS QUO-ITES are coming out fighting, in a new submission to the parliamentary Commission reviewing Section 13 of the Human Rights thing.

So now LEAF– or, The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund– is a radical busy-body group who’ve minded business in many court cases, including some notable human rights debacles.

Their latest intervention is interesting for two reasons.

(1) It’s legally pretty, with all the proper footnotes, citations, and precedent-speak which is part of our legal tradition, even when radical things are being done. The equivalent is a scholar’s paper loaded with the right terminology, bits of Greek, Latin, German, and piled high with footnotes. It’s black tail and tie, with bells on, and partly a comfortable appeal to the lawyerly sort who largely populate parliament and her committee ranks. It shows the nanny-squads are getting worried, and bringing out their big words, and clearest case.

(2) LEAF is making a bid to reset the debate. This is utter status quo-ism as a non-negotiating position. Let’s rewind, it says, to the good old days when the rabble weren’t allowed to interfere in the betters crushing the lessers, with no witnesses, or proper justice done. This is the stuff a HRC honcho only dreams about, and even sideswipes the moderate and eminently reasonable position of Professor Moon as being too far to the extremist right.

The Thing Itself

This report (read it all, including the footnotes) is a nasty piece of work, like a vicious but well-mannered Renaissance diplomat not above using assassins and poisons to do his work. It represents a curiously dusty perspective, as if 9/11, Canucki terror-plots, the MoToon thing, HRC abuses over 20 years– heck, the entire free-speech debate concerning Muslims– and hence to Christians and other freespeechers– had never happened, and we lived in the 1980s. Problem? What problem? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

For this observer, it illustrates nicely the intellectual and historical bankruptcy of the HRC utopian position: what they can’t deal with, they ignore; what they reject, they smear; what they imagine is possible (despite all evidence and experience) they pursue by any means– even such strangely dated and well-aired and problematic ideas and language that got us to the situation we’re in in Canada, now becoming a less free state with softly advancing religious and political repression on the one hand, and utter blindness and permissiveness towards stealth Jihadi anti-Westernists and radical Leftists in our midst on the other.