Get a life

Found an interesting article on the CTV news site this morning that really shows just how much people feel their standards should govern the lives of others.

Some idiot petitioned the Toronto Public Library system to remove a book from its shelves because they feel it is too violent. Well, that complaint has been registered before against various books, so it isn’t the first time the library has heard it. But it may be the first time the complaint has been lodged against a book by Dr Seuss.

That’s right. Someone well, here’s an excerpt from the article that explains it much better (and with less sarcasm) than I could manage:

A library patron asked the library’s materials review committee to pull “Hop on Pop,” a children’s classic written in 1963, because of the book’s violent themes.

The complainant said the book encouraged children to use violence against their fathers, according to the document that listed books patrons have asked to be pulled from Toronto Public Library shelves, which was posted online Monday.

The patron recommended the book be removed, and requested the Toronto Public Library not only apologize to Greater Toronto Area fathers but pay damages resulting from the book’s violent message.

The library said the book actually advises against hopping on pop and is keeping the book on its shelves.

Now, we’ve all heard the expression that someone lives in their own little world, but in my opinion, the person who complained about “Hop on Pop” is living in their own universe. My advice would be as the title of this posting suggests: get a life. Surely there are more important things to worry about than a children’s book.

Enjoy your day and remember to hug an artist – we need love too.

Cat.

Advertisements

They’ve done what??

Time to pick on some governments at various levels, which I haven’t done in a while.

I suppose I should start with the feds.  Ever since Stevie got his majority government there hasn’t really been much to pick on him about because there is very little Parliamentary debate on things – he just pushes them through – so we aren’t really aware of how badly he’s screwing us.  Earlier this week, Stevie announced the formation of the long-discussed Office of Religious Freedom. On the surface, this sounds as if it would be a fabulous idea.  Don’t get your hopes up.  It’s part of the Department of Foreign Affairs.  That’s right.  The purpose appears to be to ensure that people in other countries have the freedom to practice their faith.  Never mind that there are some people here in Canada who are still persecuted for their faith, Stevie wants to make sure others have religious freedom.  We get more prisons.

To give the feds their due, they have decided to shelve the internet spying bill – you know, the one of which Vic Toews said “You’re either with us or with the pornographers” – because of all the flak it set off.   I’m not sure if this is proof Stevie and the court jesters aren’t brain dead, or if it’s just a bit of early politicking.

Okay, now to cross the Ottawa River to La Belle Province – Quebec.  In the last election in that province, the voters decided to give the Parti Quebecois another chance at being the government.  Reason didn’t lose out completely, for the PQ only has a minority government, but that hasn’t stopped Pauline Marois, the leader, from reviving some of the policies from previous Pequiste governments.  The main policy being a newly invigorated language law.  This law, in its most basic form says “Francaise bon; Anglaise mal.”

There is an article on today’s CBC News site that shows just how exuberant some of these language police can be on occasion.  First, you must keep in mind that French as spoken in Quebec is basically unintelligible to the average Parisian.  Quebec French is frequently called ‘joual”, which is roughly how Quebecers pronounce “cheval”, or “horse” in English, and is not meant as a compliment.  So right there I find the idea of the government trying to preserve the purity of the French language laughable.  According to this article, the language police have told an Italian restaurant – an upscale one the article states – to change their menu because Italian words such as “pasta” appear far too often and they should find the French equivalent.  The Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF) has backed off on this and said it will look at exceptions for things such as foreign foods.  I can’t speak for how it is now, but at one time, people referred to a certain fast food item as “le Big Mac”.  Don’t know how that would translate.

So there you have it, insanity from Quebec and the feds doing things overseas while the same situation in Canada is allowed to fester.  And to think some people actually voted for these idiots.

I won’t pick on Ontario just yet because the new Premier, Kathleen Wynne, has only been in office about a week.

Enjoy your day and remember to hug an artist – we need love too.

Cat (le Chat) 🙂

It’s too one-sided

Following is a quote taken from an Associated Press item of today:

Algeria is proposing an initiative under the auspices of the United Nations that would limit freedom of expression in order to prevent the stigmatizing and denigrating of Islam.

I can’t speak for you, but I have a problem or two with Algeria’s proposal.  First problem is the attempt to further restrict the right of freedom of expression. This is nothing more than censorship and that it would under be the umbrella of the UN wouldn’t change that. There are already too many restrictions on who can say what to or about whom.  These restrictions masquerade under such names as racism; homophobia and many other “isms” and “phobias” you can think of without too much difficulty.  If you find the word “censorship” too harsh, try “politically correct”, which in my view is just a politically correct term meaning “censorship”.

The United Nations has lately proven itself amazingly inept at solving any problem put before it – Kofi Annan and Syria anyone? – so why on earth would Algeria think having the UN back their proposal would do any good?  I’ve read that many nations now consider the UN to be as antiquated and out of touch as a dial telephone and that attitude, if correct, means those nations probably would just ignore such an initiative.  Algeria, being a Muslim country, perhaps isn’t aware, or more likely overlooks, the fact that some countries, such as the US and Canada, have in place legislation to protect freedom of speech, which includes the freedom to criticize other religions.  Perhaps Algerians would be more amenable to a law that prevents them from speaking against Islam, but I can’t see any western country even attempting to pass such an act or amend an existing act.

Second, I find, as I said in the title, this is very one-sided.  The Q’ran tells its readers that Christians and Jews are considered “people of the book” and are to be treated accordingly, with the same respect due another Muslim.  Of course we are aware that fundamentalists in the Muslim faith, much like fundamentalists in any other religion, pick and choose which verse or sura is going to be used to justify their personal belief and that one is usually ignored.  If Algeria were truly serious, their proposal would have extended that to preventing stigmatizing and denigrating all religions.  But they couldn’t do that because many fundamental Muslims would rebel against them.

The extremists, and yes let’s be honest with ourselves and admit it is the extremists who are waging their war against the non-Muslim world, castigate Christians and Jews and even some other Muslim sects who they don’t feel are “Muslim” enough.  Not only castigate, but on occasion kill these others. Remember the song from the sixties recorded by Original Caste, “One Tin Soldier”?  It contained a line which religious fanatics of all stripes have taken to heart and seem to apply when dealing with “infidels”.  That line is “Kill them in the name of heaven, we can justify it in the end”.

Algeria’s proposal is nothing more than a blatant attempt to muzzle all criticism of a religion that appears to have been taken over by extremists and fanatics, while at the same time allowing that religion the freedom to say or do anything they wish against every other religion in the world.  It is far too one sided and if the United Nations has any sense and balls at all, it will vote it down.  But we both know that is unlikely, don’t we?

Enjoy your weekend and remember to hug an artist (that hasn’t been banned yet) – we need love too.

Cat.