Caring Canadian Extremely Intolerant of Pro-Lifers

DebO in a Burd Report article excoriated two Diamond Jubilee Medal recipients thusly: “Law-breaking anti-choice zealots … broke the law … their efforts to break the law … their actions to break the law … charged and incarcerated … illegal activities … deluded law breakers.”

Wow! Talk about zero tolerance for law-breakers! The above seven reiterations is the sole reason for the cause of DebO’s renown Friday night rile-ups. By her own reasoning, she also would have to renounce medal recipients busted for pot, but I’d wager that she wouldn’t. It’s not about principle (no law-breakers), but about politics wearing a fig leaf of principle. She just doesn’t like them because of their political beliefs. DebO believes, as do I, NO STATE INTERVENTION ON REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS.

However, I depart from DebO’s demonizing these women. One woman has accumulated over ten years in jail. She is 64 years old. She has served more time behind bars than many others convicted of violent crimes, including murder, rape, manslaughter. The woman has been convicted of violating a court order that places a proximity bubble around abortion clinics. Gasp! She has never been cited for harassment. She stands silently holding a placard with photo of a crying baby bearing the same message, “Why mom, when I have so much love to give?” Gasp! Say it ain’t so! Horrors. Scary people.

It’s a “travesty” declares DebO. “Anti-choice zealot,” declares DebO.  “… these guys play dirty,” declares DebO. This attack on the woman’s character is as disproportionate as 10 years of imprisonment for such a meagre offence.

DebO declares, “…anti-choice folks think they’re on some sort of holy mission to impose their own values on everybody else…” regardless of the fact it is DebO’s values and my values that are currently being imposed on everybody else, whether DebO realizes it or not. Pro-choice prevails, and will continue to do so for a very long time to come.

DebO declares that the issue of reproductive freedom “has been long settled.” This is a cliché bandied about by self-declared Progressives. It indicates dogma. Those who believe dogma, and defend dogma from being questioned by unbelievers are those who have attached religiosity to secular matters.

Science is never settled. Everything is open to question. But then again, DebO has declared more than once how she ain’t gonna change. She’s a dogmatist. Although I vote for pro-choice, I enjoy being exposed to arguments by those who are pro-life. So far the arguments have been unsuccessful in persuading me to relinquish my pro-choice choice.

By being tolerant of those holding views contrary to my own, I have come to appreciate the profound sincerity of many pro-lifers. Think of it. Pro-life. They believe in life. They believe that life is sacred. They believe that life begins at conception. What is so terrible about that? Ten years imprisonment for silently standing on the sidewalk with a placard within 60 feet of an abortion clinic, that’s what.

DebO, your abusive intolerance in this instance sadly undermines your caring Canadianism.

Blogger Ben Burd Footsies With Fascists

On April 4, 2011, Ben Burd wrote: “When UN workers are slaughtered by Muslems offended by a video that shows a redneck preacher in the USA burning a Koran who do we blame? The preacher – Terry Jones – has said the deaths are not his fault, blithely skimming over the fact that if he hadn't burnt the book nobody would have died, has not even faced the suggestion that he committed a crime – inciting murder. Why is that? Are the authorities in the USA afraid to talk about it. Where is the International Criminal Court, which has a cross-border jurisdiction on this?” 

It must be heartening for Mr Burd to learn that the Prosecutor General of the Muslim Brotherhood regime of Egypt has issued an arrest warrant for the “redneck preacher” Terry Jones, charging him with “harming national unity, insulting and publicly attacking Islam and spreading false information. The office said they could face the death penalty, if convicted.” The credo of the Muslim Brotherhood is "Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations."

Also charged with the “redneck preacher”, are seven Coptic Christians, two of whom, are Canadians. Coptic Christians in Egypt face lethal discrimination: sacked churches, burned villages, forced conversions of Christian girls, countless assaults and rapes and the everyday fear of being accused of blasphemy. No wonder they fled Egypt to safer lands where free speech is protected.

Two Canadians have been outed by the Muslim Brotherhood as perps in the making of the satirical Mohammed video. To use Ben Burd’s reasoning, “…if he hadn't [made] the [video] nobody would have died, has not even faced the suggestion that he committed a crime – inciting murder.” So if the two Canadians were perps in the making of this Mohammed video, then it would be consistent that Ben would be onside with laying incitement to murder charges against them as well as the “redneck preacher”. The Muslim Brotherhood charged the Canadians with offences that carry the death penalty.

(There is no chance that Canada will hand these two Canadians over to Egypt, even if it were proven that they were deeply involved in the making of the sophomoronic satirical video. Canada deports no one who faces a death penalty in another country.)

Canada must demand from Egypt that they put up or shut up. Egypt must present the evidence linking the two Canadians to the satirical video. Failure to do so is tantamount to a lethal slander against the two Canadians. They have been outed. A target has been painted on their backs, and on the backs of those near and dear to them.

A cabinet minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan held a press conference to announce that he was placing a $100,000 bounty on the heads of the video producers. The Minister declared that it was an Islamic “sacred duty”. This is counselling murder. It appears that that is acceptable free speech in that part of the world; note no street demonstrations against a ruling class politician counselling murder. Indeed contracts for murder seem to be all the rage. Mufti Mohammad Yousuf Kasuri, chief of Jamiat Ahle Hadith Party for Sindh Province, added his own reward of approximately $105,000 "for the one who will hand exemplary punishment to the blasphemer."

The Holy Head Honcho of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the SUPREME LEADER OF THE ISLAMIC REVOLUTION, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, announced, “If they had refused to support the previous links in this evil chain - namely, Salman Rushdie, the Danish cartoonist and Quran-burning American priests - and if they had not ordered tens of anti-Islam films from the companies affiliated with Zionist capitalists, today this great and unforgivable sin would not have been committed.”

And Ben Burd wrote about the “Quran-burning American priest” with these immortal words: “… if he hadn't burnt the book nobody would have died…” How sickenly similar this local progressive blogger is with the voice of theological totalitarianism.

Below is a montage of catch phrases from the Holy Head Honcho’s theological epistle: “wicked enemies of Islam … deep malice … insulting the Holy Prophet … idiotic and disgusting movie …increasing brilliance of Islam and the Holy Quran in the world today... the holiest person in all of creation … disgusting nonsense … disgrace … great crime and sin…wicked movie … hostile policies … America and other leaders of the arrogant powers, who are vainly trying to make young generations in the Islamic world lose respect for what is held sacred and to extinguish their religious sentiments … American politicians … should duly punish the perpetrators and the financial backers of this hideous crime, who have filled the hearts of Muslim people with pain…”

How touching! Within hours of the Holy Honcho delivering his religious rant, an Iranian religious foundation headed by Ayatollah Hassan Saneii, raised the bounty on novelist, Salman Rushdie’s head. Ruling class theocrats counselling murder is acceptable free speech in the 56 nations of the Organization of Islamic Co-operation, but satirical cartoons lampooning an imaginary god, well, that cannot be countenanced.

Georgeous George Galloway, is someone Ben Burd gushes over in the same manner that Burd Report co-moderator, DebO, gushed over the family dictatorshit of the Castro brothers. George Galloway shares the same feelings about the satirical video as the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution.

This is the montage of similar catch phrases from George Galloway’s tirade on PressTV, owned and operated by the Islamic Republic of Iran: “… obscene videos … obscene atrocious attack on the prophet Mohammed, on Muslims and the religion of Islam … remember those vicious hateful cartoons, the hate drawings, that first emanated in Denmark, well, they’re back. They are in a French magazine called Charlie Hebdo. Now what could have possessed such a magazine to disinter those particular cartoons? Well, it’s obvious. They want to capitalize on the number of hateful sectarians that are out there, and the number of islamophobes that are out there, as we have seen in the relish of which some sectors of Western society have gloried, glorified to use the term in British law… hate cartoons against Muslims, and against the prophet of Islam … obscene hateful caricatures of the prophet Mohammed … insulting in the most obscene and pornographic terms the prophet Mohammed, the Muslims, Islam.”

Wow, George seems clearly upset about any negativity about (1) Muslims, (2) Mohammed, (3) Islam. Again, George reflects a sickening similarity to the Supreme Leader's religious rant. Hmmm.

Charlie Hebdo is a “French satirical weekly newspaper, featuring cartoons, reports, polemics and jokes. Irreverent and stridently non-conformist in tone, the publication has a strongly antireligious, left-wing and anarchist slant.” The images are as outrageous as the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers cartoons of hippie dippie days. Recall the infamous November 2011 issue of Charlie Hebdo which was ‘guest edited’ by Mohammed. The cover illustrated Mohammed saying, “A 100 lashes of the whip if you don’t die laughing.” Charlie Hebdo was firebombed for its satirical humour.

(Galloway is slovenly with his logic. Charlie Hebdo published original cartoons – it did not reprint the Danish cartoons as Galloway accuses it of having done.)  

It appears that Ben Burd and his progressive ilk, have allied themselves with the right-wing facists of theological totalitarianism who oppose homosexuality, sexual liberation, oppress women, etc. George Galloway is a closet Muslim who does not support gay marriage, does not support women’s rights, but does support theological totalitarians.The progressive left and their ilk are dupes, plain and simple.

After all is said and done, Ben can stand with bimbo George Galloway, but I will stand with comedian George Carlin who wrote, “I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is and cross it deliberately” and “Religion is just mind control¨ and finally, “When it comes to BULLSHIT...BIG-TIME, MAJOR LEAGUE BULLSHIT... you have to stand IN AWE, IN AWE of the all time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion.¨

Ben Burd's Plagiarism

Consistent with every post on the Burd Report, the by-line is up front: Ben Burd or DebO. Everything that blog moderator, Ben Burd, composes, he attaches his by-line, identical to the above screen print.

Interestingly, Ben Burd wrote not a single word of the “A post full of poetry” article that appears under his name. No where does the name of the real author appear. It is kept secret from Burd blog readers. It is covered up. It reminds me of the journalism of the Murdoch mob.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘plagiarism’ as the “wrongful appropriation or purloining and publication as one's own, of the ideas, or the expression of the ideas… of another.”

 

It is quite unexpected. It is one thing for Ben Burd to author a racial slur on the Burd blog, and not take ownership of it but he is okay with taking ownership of  my writing. Thanks for the attribution – NOT.

DebO Runs Interference for Ben the Boss Burd

Burd Report co-moderator, DebO wrote; “…we’ve had an egregious attack made on the Boss by a former commentor who’s still mad that he got banned a few months ago and turned a careless mistake and turned it into a crusade on his own blog, crudely labeling Ben a racist when he was just being thoughtless.”

Reflective of Ben Burd’s thoughtlessness, the same phenom seems to guide DebO when she asserts that I had crudely labeled Ben as a racist. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Publishing a racial slur does not denote the publisher or anyone as a racist. My article referred only to the posting of a racial slur by Ben. No one denies it was a racial slur, but that is all it was. I made no reference to Mr Burd’s character whatsoever, and DebO’s misplaced charge that I had labeled Mr Burd a racist, or that I had even “crudely” done so, is a personal slur. It’s not the first time that DebO has made egregious personal slurs against me or others for that matter.

It would be accurate to say that I pointed out that Mr Burd had published a racial slur, but highly inaccurate to assert that I had crudely labeled Mr Burd as a racist. There is an appreciable difference that DebO seems to ignore. She also described my article as an ``egregious attack`` on Mr Burd.

My article focused on the racial slur Ben had made, not on Ben himself. I made no characterization of him, although DebO characterized Ben as being thoughtless, as an old white guy who sometimes doesn`t stop to think first before publishing. It was just a column pointing out a racial slur that Mr Burd had unwittingly made, but really he should have known better. That is not an attack. It was a tsk tsk.

DebO also asserted that I initiated a “crusade” on my blog. Really? A crusade? I made a single one-off posting that had pointed out that the publisher of The Burd Report had posted a racial slur. I do one posting on this subject and DebO scurrilously asserts that it constitutes a crusade.

DebO wrote, “He’s just an old white guy who sometimes doesn’t stop to think first.”

I have no idea what Mr Burd’s skin colour has to do with any of this, but DebO seems to think skin colour is significant; she often makes reference to white skin in her postings. Totally unnecessary.

I agree with DebO that Mr Burd was thoughtless and didn’t stop to think first and had made a careless mistake. I believe he will never again utter that racial slur, which is a good result of my pointing it out. My blog article about the racial slur included the following notion that “Every now and then, something seems evident to me, and I am reminded that it is not evident to everyone around me.” My article was educational insofar as it brought to the attention of our multicultural Northumberland community that the term “gypped” is regarded as a racial slur.

That is all. Mr Burd published a racial slur. The racial slur was in the front window of the Burd Report for 24hours, and not a single progressive, socialist, compassionate, sensitive individual who hangs out on The Burd Report posted a thing about the racial slur. This confirms the contention that such a racial slur “is not evident to everyone” That’s all.

Should they (the Burdies crowd) have noticed the racial slur? Absolutely. After all, DebO was one of those scolding Gordon Gilchrist for his immigrant slurs. She did not cut any slack for Mr Gilchrist. Mr Burd has been involved in local politics and should know better than to make such a racial slur in the public domain.

No where was I “crudely labeling Ben a racist.” That is DebO’s crude presumption, or as they say in streetspeak, ‘bullshit’. But then again, she has used the Burd Report to broadcast her personal slurs against me, proclaiming that I hate women and that I am prone to violence against women in back alleys.

The only comment I received on my blog in response to the Ben Burd’s Racial Slur article, was a message received only minutes before the racial slur was deleted from the Burd Report: “fuck off wally”. It was posted by “anonymous”, a well-known progressive coward in the community, also a disbeliever in transparency.

“fuck off wally”

That is the kind of comment that anyone in Northumberland can expect if they step up and point out that a racial slur is being bandied about in the public domain. Such a comment addresses nothing other than expressing hatred and contempt from its author. It is a typical redneck response.

“fuck off wally”

So what do we have here? We have a local blogger who had posted a racial slur and does not acknowledge that he made such a racial slur:

“I just prefer to think that somebody wrote a sloppy proposal and someone at City hall jailed to pick up on it. But if I am the poor slob that got gypped on my stat holiday pay and decide to complain my lawyer will be writing the prime contractor up for it. Surely councillors should at least ask the bloody question”

Instead, he covers up his egregious racial slur by removing it from his blog and replacing it with this message:

“This comment has been removed as a result of an alleged legal problem”

Really? An alleged legal problem? Oh I get it. It wasn’t removed because of the racial slur, but because of an alleged legal problem. Hmmm.

The Canadian and/or Ontario Human Rights Commissions might find some interest in the issue. They are, after all, the Big Brother enforcers of hate speech regulations. However, this Orwellian Ministry of Truth cannot act until they receive a complaint. Ironically, the co-moderator of the Burd Report, DebO, has called for the strengthening of Human Rights Commissions, to stamp out once and for all, the use of racist hate speech in our multicultural society.

Doubleplus-ironically, Mr Burd, DebO, and several progressive readers were all strongly supportive of the hate speech laws that are enforced by these draconian Human Rights tribunals. Racist speech and racial slurs are serious social taboos in our multicultural community.

It would have been honorable of Mr Burd if he had just acknowledged, oops, I made a social gaff, sorry for the blunder, and everyone moves on a little bit more educated.

Instead, we have a local publisher posting a racial slur, and me pointing it out. What happens? (1) the local publisher removes the racial slur & replaces it with a message about alleged legal problems; (2) anonymous posts “fuck off wally”; (3) DebO runs interference, rides shotgun, charges me with making an egregious attack and conducting a crusade.

What an interesting phenom! A progressive publisher posts a racial slur and all of a sudden that publisher is portrayed as the victim, and the whistleblower of the racial slur is the villain. So much denial and coverup for an innocuous racial slur – it is entertaining to see local progressives behaving like tories; reject transparency, cover up, ignore issues, etc.

No doubt they will take all this personally. Pity.

For the BURD BLAND BLATHERGABS

The retro-progressives of Deb Oh Oh and Bland Christie are in fine form publishing their presumptions about the VIA faux-bomb incident, focussing their tut-tuts and tsk-tsks on police conduct.

Pete Fisher wrote the following, “Cobourg Police Sgt. Nancy Saunders said the man allegedly made a comment to train staff that there was a bomb in his luggage. His luggage was removed from the train and his wife was directed to open it and go through the items while officers stood a safe distance back.”

That is all there is in the public domain about the incident. Now let’s have a look at the take by locally renown DebOO and her never-ending self-serving crusade against poverty and evil white dudes who are very unswarthy.

1. “the officers decided to use the man's wife”
2. “the police decision that it was appropriate to use the man's wife to uncover a possible bomb. How can that be right? If his companion was his child or auntie, would they be asked to volunteer for the job too? Why was his wife? What's going on?”
3. “…urges the missus to file a complaint. It's atrocious that a family member of a suspect is treated in this manner by our officers, and so casually too.”
4. “this type of callous behaviour”
5. “Shame on them for showing such poor judgment.”
6. “the wife being used in lieu of a bomb squad.”

Throughout her presumptuous self-righteousmess, the reader is led to believe that the woman was somehow coerced to perform this act reluctantly, aka against her will. DebOO asserts that the police had so callously used the wife that the wife should file a complaint about her atrocious treatment. Concluding that the police were very very bad (atrocious) DebOO wags her scolding finger -- Shame on them.

BLAND CHRISTIE ups the presumptuousmess a notch. He asserts, “The Cobourg police acted in a manner that requires an investigation. No common sense was used. The woman was publicly humiliated not once but twice. First in being made -in full public view- to do the job of the police and open the luggage and afterwards to take a taxi to the Cobourg police station. The police acted as bullies.”

All the facts have been obtained and a judgment rendered: “The police acted as bullies.” Bland Christie, who applies common sense in every instance, concludes that “No common sense was used.”

Hmmm let’s try something out. A scenario that does not assume the worst of the cops.

Suppose the man and wife were expressing differences to each other. Perhaps he was half-cut or stoned or both. He allegedly had some pot. So the guy is a jerk and makes a stupid remark to train staff using the words “bomb” and “luggage.”

The train staff begin to implement some protocols, stopping the train in Cobourg and calling the cops. Meantime, the stressed out wife, who had to put up with her jerkass husband for the last 73 minutes on the train, and now this, pleads with the train staff to ignore the goof. She packed the suitcases herself, she declares, and there is no bomb, no bomb, she says.

But the train staff go all automaton protocol (as delineated by Dan The Bland work-to-drool union censor) and on come the cops to arrest the man. While on the train, the wife pleads with the cops that there is no bomb, that she packed the bags and she volunteers to open the suitcases to prove her point and after a bit of discussion the banal plausibility of the wife’s story convinces the police to “direct” her to open the suitcases. The stressed out wife proves her point – NO BOMB. Whew all around.

Insofar as the police not driving the wife to the police station along with her husband, she was not charged with anything. The Cobourg police have no mandate to provide taxi service to any adults. The woman is fully capable of taking care of her affairs by herself. It is her decision whether she continued on VIA or stayed in Cobourg.

If Bland Christie & his sock puppet, DebOO had their way, the train would have stopped in a field away from population, disembarked all the passengers in a deadly heat and vehicled them to a nearby air conditioned shelter to wait out the hour after hour after hour while the “experts” arrive and sniff the train, baggage car included. Once every protocol is signed off, the passengers can be vehicled back aboard to continue on their journey, perhaps in a few cases, to learn that they missed their flight.

The retro-progressives of BURDBLAND would have imposed a fascist experience on everyone. Yep that blandinista with as much intelligence as stale beer, stomps his righteous fascist boot: “The arresting officers should by now be suspended until an investigation is completed. The train employees should be suspended and should be giving full statements.”

The stupid fart gratuitously threw in some mud on Pete Fisher – “Pete Fisher should searh (sic) his soul and find out what makes hero worshipers like him tick. In short, this whole debacle stinks to high heaven.” Sock puppet, DebOO coos and disses the Fish in tandem. She also indulges in racial profiling (“the man does look a little swarthy in the pix”), presuming that all “bombers” are swarthy, a stereotype that is inaccurate. But then again, she does have an obsession with the unworthiness of white skinned people, feeling a need to constantly bring up skin pigmentation to support and identify stereotypes to score political points.

The only souls that need to be searched are those of the ménage a trios of the circle jerkistas nesting in BURDBLAND. Gobble gobble gullible!