H&I Fires* 16 AUG 2007

August 16, 2007 | | Comments (71)

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite.

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

***********************************

As I'm sure you've heard, there has been a devastating earthquake in Peru. The death toll has climbed above 300. This story got some people to thinking.

"Big Earthquake in Peru. Send USNS Comfort. NOW"

Good thinking Springbored!......Maggie

*********************************

Armor mentioned the little show case of corporations hoping to sell some nifty products to the military. No video and limited pictures, but an interesting little article about the event here: New Era of Counter Terror Weapons

Also, if you missed it, three wounded warriors were on Fox the other day talking about their experiences. One Cpl Padilla (no relation to the terror suspect) talks about being wounded and his friends braving a hail of fire to rescue him.

With the recent planned designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization I started pulling together some information on the Iranian economic situation and possible effects of this designation. The BBC had written a brief report about the challenges.

After I wrote this review that included information on Ahmedinijad's continued consolidation of power in the presidency, the thought came to me that the recent gasoline rationing can be more than simply a production or economic issue. My two bets are: 1) suspect attacks so they are building reserves to support military operations for more than 30 days; 2) it's main impact is on the "masses"; gasoline rationing means that any opposition cannot freely or even covertly meet. to oppose Ahmedinijad in any way including planning political opposition in the upcoming elections.

-Kat

**********************************

Perhaps one of our Canadian readers can explain the logic behind this decision in the context of the others cited? -the Armorer

**********************************
Featured YouTube Smackdown video for August 16:
Featured: ISI: IED vs RG31 in Dyala - kateebjihad

Note: If you aren't familiar with the YouTube Smackdown, please visit the first link above before taking a look at the second. Thanks. - Rickbert
**********************************

*A term of art from the artillery. Harassment and Interdiction Fires.

Back in the day, when you could just kill people and break things without a note from a lawyer, they were pre-planned, but to the enemy, random, fires at known gathering points, road junctions, Main Supply Routes, assembly areas, etc - to keep the bad guy nervous that the world around him might start exploding at any minute.

*Not really relevant to today's operating environment, right? But, it *is*

The UAVs (oops, can't call 'em UAVs anymore - they're now Unmanned Aerial Systems... some Colonel got his Legion of Merit for that change...), er, um UAS's we fly over Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for targets of opportunity are a form of H&I fires, if you really want to parse it finely. We just have better sensors and fire control now.

I call the post that because it's random things posted by me and people I've given posting privileges to. It's also an open trackback, so if someone has a post they're proud of, but it really isn't either Castle kind of stuff, or topical to a particular post, I've basically given blanket permission to use that post for that purpose. Another term of art that might be appropriate is "Free Fire Zone"

Share This Article:

Categories:

71 Comments

By Justthisguy on August 16, 2007 10:05 AM
When you live in a place where there are lots of tornadoes, a trailer is a bad place to inhabit. When you live in a place where there are lots of earthquakes, and hardly any tornadoes, a trailer is an *excellent* place to inhabit. Think about it. The jolts attendant upon moving the trailer along the roads are, I betcha, more violent than the average earthquake. Therefore, it's obvious that people who live in earthquake-prone areas like Peru should live in house trailers, and leave the wheels and springs on, and people who live in tornado-prone areas, like Northern Georgia, Tennessee, and the General Midwest, should live in substantial stone buildings. See, I've solved that problem! That was eas
   
By Chuck Simmins on August 16, 2007 10:43 AM
If I understand the Iranian situation correctly, all their gasoline is produced in one large refinery. The shortages are due to lack of product.
 
By Damian on August 16, 2007 12:25 PM
John, don't use the word "logic" in connection with a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, let alone ask for a rational explanation of their decision-making. Steyn didn't even mention this challenge.
 
By MajMike on August 16, 2007 12:26 PM
re: IRGC designated as terrorist organization. someone in TJAG office should probably best be promulgating something pretty quick-like now. this complicates things as per Geneva III.
 
By Alan on August 16, 2007 1:06 PM
First of all, it confirms what a twit Steyn is. He fails to understand basic concepts on a regular basis so serves little use as an edjificational tool for you poor southerners. Note his use of "Christian" for a sub-set of Christian as well as his ascription of a constitutional ruling, in the case Vriend, issued in 1998 by the Supreme Court of Canada that sexual orientation is to be understood to be included in human rights legislation to the human right commission that later reheard the case and was bound by it. Heed such hyperventaliting fearmongering dopes at your peril. Essentially, in the present case about the taxi you have a ruling that manages conflicting rights - that of the disabled and that of the religious believer, though I do not know the basis for the no-dog-in-taxi form of Islamic piety. You get clashes of rights all the time in human rights law. Recently, I was involved in one settlement that had to deal with conflicting needs of two sorts of persons with disabilities. You deal with it by dealing with it accomodating both as best as possible.
 
By John of Argghhh! on August 16, 2007 1:47 PM
Breathe, Alan, breathe! That's why I asked, after all. I'm still not sure I understand it clearly, however. Why is the guy objecting to printing gay material on religious grounds (though he found someone who would) different from the resolution of the guy objecting to transporting a dog on religious grounds (Islam considers dogs to be unclean, as they do pigs), where he has the requirement to secure an accomodation for the disabled person? Stripping away all the Steyn-ism from it...
 
By Alan on August 16, 2007 2:00 PM
I don't know as it depends on the facts of each case. Remember, Steyn may be misrepresenting the facts to make his hyperventilations more entertaining. Maybe what is the unstated fact is that the printing firm cannot be "Christian" so another printer in the same firm could have done the work. A taxi driver has no back-up in the car. But I have no idea. Like Steyn.
 
By Oldloadr on August 16, 2007 2:56 PM
1. I have known Muslims who have kept dogs, so just like women covering their face, the dog thing is a personal belief; so why should it be accommodated at all? Besides, the taxi driver isn't being asked the kiss the dog, just take it somewhere. 2. Why is accommodation of every possible quirk and superstition superseding assimilation as a more of Western Civilization? Of course, if your beliefs are based on Christian principles, they cannot possibly be accommodated, as that would violate the mythical separation of Church and State...
 
By Alan on August 16, 2007 3:11 PM
I have no idea what you are talking about in relation to #2 as Christian beliefs, including non-judging, are doing fine in Canada as well as the US I understand. On #1, as I said, Steyn provided no link or explanation so I assume he is misrepresenting the facts through the run of the mill vacuous scoffing.
 
By John of Argghhh! on August 16, 2007 3:14 PM
And, to be clear, no picking on Alan as if he represents the Canadian government, in all it's glory, 'k? He's just tryin' to help, so no point scoring! 8^ )
 
By kat-missouri on August 16, 2007 3:17 PM
someone in TJAG office should probably best be promulgating something pretty quick-like now. this complicates things as per Geneva III.
Huh...good point. But maybe that's why they are a "special" terrorist organization? And, if we actually went to war with them and they had uniforms on, by acting as a legitimate force, wouldn't they have simply fell within a new designation re: geneva conventions?
 
By Alan on August 16, 2007 3:27 PM
That is rule #17 in the ground breaking 1999 edition of the "Guide to the Care and Feeding of Reasonably Polite Blog Comment Makers of Opposing Views."
 
By Damian on August 16, 2007 3:52 PM
No point-scoring? Given the fact that I'm just as Canadian as our friend Alan, and that I've actually had dinner and a drink or three with him on a couple of occasions, I'll politely request your indulgence as I ignore your request, John. Hopefully the Rulez won't be too badly bent. Alan, you ASSUME Steyn is lying? As a lawyer, do you honestly expect us to take that rebuttal seriously? Let me provide some links. Here is an article that delves more deeply into the circumstances that gave rise to the complaint, and into the details of the ruling, which include a provision that a driver who refuses service to a disabled customer must wait with that customer until the next available taxi arrives. Here is some additional context for the Muslim taxi drivers versus patrons with seeing-eye-dogs conflict. As you can see, this isn't a one-off. Unfortunately, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal doesn't seem to have put the final ruling up on its website yet, but here is a preliminary ruling from October of last year on the attempt to have the case dismissed. And the concerns about double-standards when it comes to Christian religious beliefs is further explored in this ruling, where two lesbians filed a complaint against a Knights of Columbus hall for failing to rent it to them for a same-sex wedding reception. I know you CAN make an argument, Alan. I wonder whether or not you value the opinion of anyone at this site enough to actually make one, though. Because so far, your response has been nothing more than a dismissive wave of the hand.
 
By Boquisucio on August 16, 2007 4:22 PM
Ten years ago I first became acquainted with Ica, during a trip to Lima. There I sampled some of its finest grapes, in the form of Pisco. Soon there after I became a good friend with other potable versions: D.O.C. Valle del Ica. Suprisingly fine wines, for everyone has heard of Argentinian and Chilean wines, and not those coming from Perú. I feel deeply for the people of Perú, and its well shaken vintages.
 
By Boquisucio on August 16, 2007 4:29 PM
I raise y'all a challenge. Any untoward remarks against our Kanook friend will be swiftly countered with a sacrificial Molson down my tummy. Uuuurp!
 
By John of Argghhh! on August 16, 2007 7:23 PM
Uh, oh - I see Damian demands I erect the Octagon...
 
By Oldloadr on August 16, 2007 8:35 PM
1. Damian - I had already checked your link on the KofC which is why I expressed that opinion. I guess not everybody here took it seriously... 2. I didn't think I was tryig to score points; but I admit I was trying to be contraversal to bring out more debate on the subject.
 
By Alan on August 16, 2007 9:07 PM
See, Damian does what Steyn chooses not to. By using 47 words Steyn can only, and happily misrepresents, sways and do all those those things that are rhetorical but which Damian calls a lie. Damian, by comparison, provides some proof. The rest of what Damian says is frankly fluffery...or maybe puffery - which is really odd as he isn't very fluffy or puffy at all even with the music hall outrage about my supposed dismissiveness. Pap should be dismissed - even if that would undermine 90% of blogging. The point still stands. You can misrepresent one or two cases out of thousands before human rights tribunals to shout "THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!" Compare how a while ago we bloggers were all in a tizzy about unregulated religious arbitration in Ontario but none of the same bloggers blogged about it becoming regulated a few months ago - those I sent some (not Damian) the regulation. Less news worth often means less post worthy, sadly, with blogs. How many bloggers post titles like "Sky Not Falling Today"...or newspaper columnists for that matter.

But look at the article Damian refers to. One hundred and fifty taxi drivers have ignored the man and the dog but it is the Muslim driver who gets the treatment because his religious beliefs (which we can assume are honestly held) made the man with the dog's "blood boil." Did he bring the complaint against all taxi cab firms in the area, clearly a possible tactic, or just the one with that last cabbie? And how did he choose structure his claim? One always structures one's claims, you know. I have no idea what lesbians and Knights of Columbus have to do with dogs and taxis. But that is a problem with cherry picking one isolated case and placing it next to another - from two different jurisdictions, one being BC. There was also the couple given the boot from a "Christian" B+B in PEI who lost a human rights case there, too. I suppose the implication is that there is a war on Christians, though it seems really to be a ban on the intolerant supply of commercial services by Christians - something both the faith and human rights codes lean against. The law still stands and was applied: do not provide a service if your faith cannot accommodate short of undue hardship. The taxi firm did accommodate, though the individual driver would not drive. How did the Hall accommodate? They didn't. Is it a worthy comparison? Not a chance. As I said, you can't compare these two cases as easily as Steyn would have you believe. The case on the hall is the matter of a ruling which turned on the question of "undue" hardship. The other was after a settlement by the taxi firm. It is likely the driver and his beliefs were not in any position to actually guide the outcome at all. Believe me - if there was the slightest evidence of it, I might believe it but being a Christian in Canada I am happily not concerned. I am far more concerned for the faith by the money changers, adulterers and other sinners within. But that is the wicked work a little understanding can do. You can find even arguments in favour of Satan if you craft your research from the Bible just so. A little learning is indeed a dangerous thing. Newspaper columnists are some of the best proof of it. Damian is not. He is a good man indeed whose shit I would gladly be flung with if only to assist him in becoming a better man thereby. PS: Damian, John goaded me by email to reply. He really did. I think he's the real trouble maker around here.

 
By Damian on August 16, 2007 10:11 PM
Alan, JD is most definitely the trouble-maker around here. And I am most definitely puffy and fluffy - just ask my wife, who sees me at my puffiest and fluffiest. 'Nuff said. Prolly too much, in fact. :P Here's my big problem with your rebuttal, Alan: you haven't bothered to rebut. Oh, you've said that the cases I've pointed out are cherry-picking, and not representative of the whole. Perhaps you're right, but again, why do you simply want John's readers to take your word on it - especially when they have some evidence of to the contrary (albeit evidence you say isn't representative of the whole)? And by the way, the KofC claim and the dogs-and-taxis claim were both filed in the same jurisdiction, namely British Columbia, not different ones as you wrongly suggested. Back to the main point, though: John asked what was a sincere and reasonable question, which was how we might be able to explain the logic behind apparently contradictory decisions. I submitted that trying to apply logic to them was futile, and provided a bit of support for that idea in the form of yet another claim in the same jurisdiction that put Christian religious beliefs behind same-sex human rights, whereas the taxi claim put Muslim religious rights ahead of disabled human rights. The situations aren't identical, but they're congruent. And all you've done is insult Mark Steyn and tell everyone that my evidence is thin and off-point without providing a shred of support for your own position, other than an implied "trust me, I'm a lawyer." I hope you can see why I'm reluctant to do so. (Did I offer up enough insults for a cage-match? No? I'll try better next time.)
 
By Alan on August 17, 2007 6:08 AM
OK, I will drop the mock insult but I am, sorry, still very much unimpressed. I missed the BC taxi thing. Me wrong. So why is there no great human rights commission conspiracy? The first difference is really that one is a settlement. The blind man agreed to what Steyn portrays as "his treatment". It is his fault that the ruling is structured as it is. Similarly, the human rights commission was not in control of the issue in the case of the teacher. The Supreme Court found our constitution included sexual orientation in the protection of human characteristics relating to "sex". And he doesn't distinguish between people in the commercial sphere - the KoC - importing their prejudices. Would the hall have been rented to a bi-racial couple in 1968 or a Catholic-Protestant one in 1958? Likely not. That is why human rights law is there - to free us from such prejudices. This does not mean the KoC aren't having their religion stomped on. They are free to have their hall, use it for religious purposes and wear funny hats - and forget that reaction...I am a Mason and know what a funny hat is. But when you move into the public sphere and offer goods on the market, you have to follow the law whether it is in relation to product safety, taxation or selling freely throughout the public without discrimination. So Steyn neither understands the field he is discussing not the lack of analogy among the particular cases he uses to make his non-point. Pap. You may still find me dismissive to Steyn but I am very comfortable with that as everything of his I have had the misfortune to read carries this quality of shoddy thought. People can be broadly read and still stunned.
 
By John of Argghhh! on August 17, 2007 6:49 AM
I am a Mason and know what a funny hat is. Aha! Much is made clear. Dammed Illuminati. Alan - for this space, a day that screams "The Sky Is Not Falling" is one where the posts are full of livestock, a letter from a politician, and questions about quaint and abstruse legal questions in foreign countries... but I gotta keep it interesting enough people will come back... right? Hell yes right, my ego demands it! While I agree it gets difficult, sometimes, to slog through it all as both sides in any question that makes it to the news tend to describe things from the extreme viewpoint - I really was looking for the explanation of the seeming dichotomy of Damian's observation:
I submitted that trying to apply logic to them was futile, and provided a bit of support for that idea in the form of yet another claim in the same jurisdiction that put Christian religious beliefs behind same-sex human rights, whereas the taxi claim put Muslim religious rights ahead of disabled human rights.
With the core of my perplexity therein represented by the italicized section. Alan's early discussions make sense, if suffering from the disappointing aspect of technical legalities trumping, with no real discussion of the underlying conflict (seemingly endemic to lawyerly explanations, however seasoned with barbs tossed in at individuals) at issue, summed in the italicized bit of Damian's proffer. Alans last two paras get to the heart of the matter - from a legal perspective. His continued dismissing of Steyn that he tosses in then bumps the applecart - spilling some fine Granny Smiths' - as he then just calls us ignorant fools guilty of shoddy thought... by proxy. Dammed Illuminati-smarty-pants.
 
By Alan on August 17, 2007 7:04 AM
I only called Steyn a twit. It is up to you to associate yourself with a person whole hog no matter what as opposed to the quality of their individual statements. I think you are smart enough to take my heed in fact, however much I am the minor prophet shouting in the wilderness. That means I think you are as clever as me. That is an unbelievable compliment.
 
By John of Argghhh! on August 17, 2007 7:21 AM
Snerk. [Moves to mirror to check for "Kick me" sign...]
 
By MajMike on August 17, 2007 8:10 AM
kat: thx for noticing. ..and there is no "IF" about it. IRGC is now / has been physically present in the battlespace. IRGC is now / has been in custody. IRGC wears uniforms, and sometimes may or may not be wearing such uniform and may or may not be carrying their Geneva ID card. competant tribunals will need to be convened.
 
By kat-missouri on August 17, 2007 8:22 AM
I believe the final issue here is the differential treatment of religious beliefs of a minority, when a Jew or a Christian expressing any ideas of faith or attempting to live by them in all aspects of their lives tends to bring out the horror of potential theocracy. Crucifix on a wall? No. Prayer rugs and special sinks for ablutions? Yes. Carry a bible in school? Be ridiculed for your faith. Carry a Koran and you are suddenly everyone's persecuted, brilliant brother. It is a matter of how you view the situation. Mention God as a guiding factor in your personal and public life? A lunatic who is on the verge of creating Armageddon in order to fulfill some biblical prophesy. Insist that Allah, his messenger and the stringent laws of Shariah be the guide of your own personal life, those around you and the future of the free democratic country that has given you asylum? You are suddenly a celebrity invited to all sorts of official government events, political dinners and all over the television. If Jerry Falwell talks about a woman's place is at home (not that I agree, just mentioning), he is lambasted from one end of the English speaking world to another. Yusif Zakaria writes a two page op-ed on the need to cover women from head to toe, make her subject to a male family member's whim, insist her only protection is in the bosom of her family or marriage and, suddenly, he is everybody's darling, simply defending his cultural beliefs even as he lives and practices them within a free and democratic state. You see, we are not about whether one religion is better, but we are concerned that, when our constitutional laws are used to depress our beliefs and push them into the darkness behind the doors of an unseen private life where public demonstrations are villified, that other religions are not only allowed to flourish in public, but are given protections (including such foul things as designating disagreement as hate speech and providing government funded forums for preaching) that we are not and never have been afforded. Frankly, we don't need those protections, however, it is simply hypocrisy to make it otherwise for another. Laws and human rights protections be d*mned. They are being bent to imply something that does not exist and has never been planned (namely, the Christian theocratic take over of a secular state) while offering a hand to something that is widely stated publicly as THE plan: namely the institution of Islam over all nations. I just read some idiot saying he would prefer Extremist Muslims over "fundamentalist Christian's". What sort of idiocy and self loathing breeds that? The secularists have succeeded in demonizing Christianity, only to turn around and swill down an even more stringent, dare I say, violent and exclusionary religion. that is what we are talking about. Parsing laws means nothing compared to that.
 
By Alan on August 17, 2007 8:34 AM
That has nothing to do with it, k-m. Import all the external factors and comfortable grudges all you like - it has nothing to do with it.
 
By John of Argghhh! on August 17, 2007 8:41 AM
Now you're talking like a lawyer, Alan. It has *everything* to do with it - the legal niceties of each separate incident notwithstanding. The point is - reasonable people, with inexpert knowledge, looking at the events can come away with the impression that Damian, Oldloadr, Kat, and Steyn have come away with - and just asserting hand-wave legalisms and dismissing the concerns fails to address the concerns - it actually fans them. Engagement - and reasoned explanation is more helpful. Just saying "Trust me, I'm a lawyer" isn't, as Damian noted. Because while you are looking at it through the legal prism, and wanting to reduce it to the specific circumstances of each case - defensible, surely - you are hand-waving away the larger cultural context in which it swims. IOW, perception is reality, and you are only chipping, in very small ways, at the perception, and dismissing, in a sense, the views of people who's perceptions don't match your own.
 
By Alan on August 17, 2007 8:52 AM
I trust then you will similarly roll over and accept tangential understandings of matters military and geo-political, then John. This is not about "legalese" but about how something actually works. If you do not enngage with the system to understand it, as with any system, you will fail to understand. Steyn is a great proponent of the shopping of failed understanding. So if you want to import a lot of non-relevant non-truths to distract and undermine a discussion about one topic you must support doing that for all topics. I know you have too much integrity to do that so I hope this illustration...illustrates.
 
By AFSister on August 17, 2007 9:00 AM
head.hurts. *switches focus to helping Maggie find out where John erected the Octagon*
 
By John of Argghhh! on August 17, 2007 9:03 AM
One of the reasons I started this blog was to provide the context that many times the MSM leaves out, due to ignorance, or time and space constraints. I think I do try to "accept tangential understandings of matters military and geo-political" - but not to roll over on them. Nor do I expect you to. I'm just suggesting that simply dismissing them isn't helpful to your attempt to enlighten, as they are part of the context, too. One of the things that irks me about many otherwise fine blogs is just the sort of thing you are talking about. Of course - it's also part of what makes them more popular, too, as many of the willing-to-comment wanderers of the internet are looking for exactly that. One thing that keeps a lot of people away from the blogs, unless they like that. It's been interesting to watch the blogs evolve. It's another reason that the bulletin board-style spaces still thrive - they're moderated, and people feel safer there. Unfortunately, in many cases, that just reinforces the bubble people live in, too.
 
By John of Argghhh! on August 17, 2007 9:06 AM
Snerk - we got one, Alan. AFSis is down for the count!
 
By Alan on August 17, 2007 9:11 AM
Consider, however, that I have a number of time described in lay language how this opinion you have cited in a poor opinion. Dismissing the irrelevant to the question is very importantif one is to get to the nub. Yet people are called moonbats for suggesting less on many blogs. If the point is to observe upon how society has changed, that is fine but readers are getting into "shoulda, coulda, woulda" area if they do not come to a problem with understanding open to receive an education on the new topic. Frankly, I am a bit surprised that people in the military or Damian in another logical regulation system are as unfamiliar with what are fairly general systems of legal process. But fear not - again, I only dismiss Steyn not you or the Denizens.
 
By kat-missouri on August 17, 2007 9:25 AM
..and there is no "IF" about it. IRGC is now / has been physically present in the battlespace. IRGC is now / has been in custody. IRGC wears uniforms, and sometimes may or may not be wearing such uniform and may or may not be carrying their Geneva ID card. competant tribunals will need to be convened.
Okay...when I said "if" I meant as in a "formal declaration or recognition" of said war, not this proxy war without officially recognized "war". And, when I said "wearing uniforms", I did mean to imply that, if they are in Iraq now, without a uniform and participating in terrorist acts, they do not fall within the III conventions as opposed to, if we went head to head with a battalion and they had on uniforms, captures, wounded, etc would fall within the appropriate convention. Why is it not that straight forward?
 
By Oldloadr on August 17, 2007 9:28 AM
I have to speak up about the Law (as sacred as it is to lawyers) and the simple truths of right and wrong to us huddled masses of middle class fly-over people: 1. In 1854, the US Supreme Court ruled that a black man was not a human being endowed by his creator with certain inalienable rights. That made it law, but it didn’t make it right (BTW, I’m a real Southerner, so for me to use that argument is revealing to those who understand U.S. culture). 2. In 1973, the same institution ruled that an unborn baby was not a human endowed by his/her creator with the most basic of inalienable rights (life). That made it law, but it didn’t make it right. 3. I can go back further: During the colonial period, the British Parliament enacted laws to protect and support British business at home at the expense of business interests in the colonies. Then, they enacted taxes targeted specifically at the colonies without allowing those colonies any voice in the matter; what followed was called a revolution. Therefore, Alan, pardon the rest of us if we don’t have the same respect for the “Law” as you have. Bottom line: If a muslim cabby has the right to refuse a blind man, the KofC certainly has the right to refuse access to lesbians. That is what’s right; regardless of what the “Law” of your county, my country or any other country has to say. BTW, if it wasn’t for lawyers, we wouldn’t need lawyers.
 
By Oldloadr on August 17, 2007 9:33 AM
And I know somebody is going to say, "If it wasn't for soldiers, we wouldn't need soldier, either." Hey, that's true, as well, but I'm more willing to live in a country with no lawyers than one with no defense establishment, but I admit I may have a bias there (LOL).
 
By Alan on August 17, 2007 9:35 AM
I don't have any particular respect for law or lawyers. I do think it is something you have to work to understand if you are going to get supportable opinions on it and its implications. If you are satisfied with not engaging with what the actual rule - accomodating to the point of undue hardship - even means, you are admitting you can't be bothered learning that which is easily learned. The world is generally confusing to those with closed minds to their own education. You can do better.
 
By Damian on August 17, 2007 9:41 AM
Alan, I'm not a lawyer, as you know, so maybe this is all just going way over my head. But I'm not sure you're being consistent here: But when you move into the public sphere and offer goods on the market, you have to follow the law whether it is in relation to product safety, taxation or selling freely throughout the public without discrimination. If you're going to hammer the KofC on this point, don't you have to hammer the Muslim taxi driver too? Nobody is telling him he has to allow a seeing-eye dog into his home, just into his cab. This is the crux of my confusion, because it sure looks like a double standard to this layman's eyes.
 
By John of Argghhh! on August 17, 2007 9:41 AM
I think the we're circling the issue - how hard *good* communication is.
 
By John of Argghhh! on August 17, 2007 9:43 AM
Heh - this is spiraling faster than I can keep up - and I have to go have my soul crushed at a meeting.
 
By Oldloadr on August 17, 2007 9:43 AM
Alan - Engaging and understanding are not the same as agreeing with the processes or agendas of those who practice the "Law." I fully understand how lawyers get to where they get to in these silly decisions and I fully disagree with the whole process. Are you saying that makes me closed-minded because I think the system is broken. I'd say someone who keeps on believing in a broken system is the one who is closed minded.
 
By Alan on August 17, 2007 9:52 AM
No, John, Damian is circling smaller and smaller circles to get to the nub. It takes time to learn. I am not saying I am either right or a perfect educator but you have to do this, especially with law. Remember it is not the taxi driver, it is the firm. The firm and the blind man agreed to a way out of the complaint that made them happy. That is the difference with the settlement and the order against the Hall owners. It was in a way a private solution that worked for them and may have effectively left out both the commission and the taxi driver from the final outcome. Both the firm and the blind man agreed to each give to get a solution that works. One may infer that the blind man accepted the honesty of the beliefs of the Muslim taxi driver due to his accomodation in return. Compared to that, how did the KoC accomodate people of opposing belief in the supply of the rental of the Hall? They didn't. So the blind guy has an arrangement to get a taxi from the (for profit) company supplying the service while the lesbians do not get a hall from the (non-profit) company. That is how I see it playing out.
 
By Alan on August 17, 2007 9:58 AM
Frankly, Oldloadr, I think that if you consider law is involved with "agenda", is "silly", is "broken" and that you "fuly disagree with the whole process" that you have decided neither to engage with or understand what law is. That is unfortunate in a democratic society which has to have a legal system and I would be interested in what cause someone to be so jaded to their civic responsibilities in relation to the Republic they love.
 
By Oldloadr on August 17, 2007 10:07 AM
The answer as to what would make someone so jaded is in my comments above concerning Supreme Court rulings. As to not engaging, that doesn't make sense since: 1. What are we doing here? 2. I never mentioned whether I vote in every election (which I do), or if I contact my elected official (which I do) or if I try to influence those around me during election cycles (which I do) so how can you say I'm not engaged. In fact I am fully engaged and enraged... To me, it is not acedemic, but the very survival of Western civilization and the Judeo-Christian ethic
 
By Oldloadr on August 17, 2007 10:12 AM
BTW - I didn't know that despising the legal profession reflected poorly on meeting my civic responsibilities... I would be interested in hearing the logic on that one.(LOL)
 
By Alan on August 17, 2007 10:15 AM
Start with separation of powers of the Republic under the constutition and go from there.
 
By Damian on August 17, 2007 10:38 AM
Ahh. I finally understand. You're saying that because the blind man agreed to settle with the taxi company beforehand, instead of letting the tribunal hear his case and render a decision, that we can't blame the tribunal for the resulting odd standard. Fair enough. The dogs-and-taxis case wasn't decided, it was settled - privately, between the parties involved, and not by some directive of the BC Human Rights Commission. I get it. There's the logical explanation you were looking for, John. Although, Alan, I do wish you had made that point clearly at the beginning of the exchange, rather than making us wade through all the rest of your non-arguments first. ;)
 
By Alan on August 17, 2007 10:44 AM
Who said I was a great communicator? ;-) Remember, too, in the Alberta gay teacher case, it was the Supreme Court that effectively made the determination, not the human rights commission by stating something that should have been obvious in our Charter of Rights. So, Steyn's examples of a great HRC conspiracy are not examples of HRC dealings at all. Which makes for a bad observation on his part.
 
By kat-missouri on August 17, 2007 11:02 AM
You know alan, I completely understand the legal reasoning behind these decisions in regards to settlement v. order. However, it does not change the perception. And while you were busy dissing the "perception" as an unworthy adversary of the law, it is "perception" of illegality, immorality and inequality that drives the writing and application of law. In fact, no such law protecting human rights would exist if someone did not perceive an inequality. the law said separate but equal. People perceived that it was separate, but it was unequal. We get civil rights movements and desegregation. The law was wrong. Without "perception" there is no law. Constitution says all men are created equal. Another law written in at the same time as the constitution was written states that a blackman is only 1/3 a man to be counted towards the census. Now, is that law written because it is a known fact that a black man is worth 1/3 of a whiteman or is it because that is the perception of that time? And, because perceptions change, the law is rescinded. And, finally, just because the legal endings do follow the law, it does not change my perception that specific laws that are to protect the rights of individuals are being used to protect and set group rights above the individual. It does not change my perception that some bizarre social and cultural shift has taken place wherein Christians, particularly openly faithful Christians, are now the spawn of all evil and Muslims are the good guys. Not that I see Muslims as evil per se, but I certainly do not see Christians as evil God haters not practicing the correct religion because I object strenuously to certain practices and beliefs of Muslims. Particularly, when I see those beliefs as being forced on certain segments of society and when it specifically violates those tenets of individual rights.
 
By Alan on August 17, 2007 11:33 AM
Your preceptions are independent of the law. They, you would agree, are at odds with the perceptions of other citizens. That is why law is so important and so sadly dismissed by lay people. That attitude is like trying to play a game with no concern for the rules. In a democracy, it is worse because the civic responsbility of the citizens is to ensure the rules make sense. Otherwise, they make sense for someone else. If bitching about the law is like bitching about your flat tire. Fix it.
 
By NevadaDailySteve on August 17, 2007 11:53 AM
I am a Mason and know what a funny hat is.
Hey now. I'm a Mason too and I'm not familiar with funny hats. Of course I'm not a Shriner, just blue lodge and Scottish Rite. After watching this donnybrook I'm still left with some qualms and quibbles. Now the fact that the blind guy settled the case may be well and good for him but what about other people with service animals (not all service animals are dogs and not all people using such animals are blind). From a practical point of view (not the laws forte) isn't it much more practical to have a printer find a substitute printer than to have a taxi driver find a substitute driver? The time constraint on taxi travel seems to militate for immediate service over a print job that could take days or even longer to complete. Again I acknowledge that one was settled by the parties without going all the way with the commission and one was decided by it but I think the law should take notice of reality instead of ignoring it. And the commission is a bunch of pooty-heads. Oh no, did I type that out loud? John, NO! Ouch! Stop that! Arrgghhh! (Now I now where that comes from!)
 
By Damian on August 17, 2007 12:07 PM
And the commission is a bunch of pooty-heads. Oh no, did I type that out loud? John, NO! Ouch! Stop that! Arrgghhh! (Now I now where that comes from!) *choking with laughter* Great. Now I've got coffee on the keyboard. Again.
 
By Alan on August 17, 2007 12:14 PM
[Good job with the Masonic secrecy obligations, brother NDS] I would just say that the settlement would not have been the result of the parties canvassing other rulings as much reflecting what the parties themselves thought was practical. The same goes in a sense for comparing criminal code sentences from one place or another with difference facts. The courts and tribunals only deal with the cases before them as do the parties in their settlements.
 
By Oldloadr on August 17, 2007 12:43 PM
Alan - Now explain what my despising the legal profession has to do with separation of powers; especially in light that the US constitution does not require that a judge be a lawyer. In fact, even as we argue these little points, somewhere in the US there are sitting magistrates that have no law degree, are elected by popular vote and often re-elected by an appreciative citizenry. I admit that in my 51 years I have met maybe 3 lawyers who I didn't think were wasting oxygen so I can't really say I despise them all collectively, but I do despise what they, as a group, have done to the Constitution while John and I and a good many others were busy defending that same document. To say that despising lawyer shows disrespect for the separation of powers, therefore, doesn't make any sense. In fact, it's the over-reach of activist judges in this country that have showed a disrespect for the aforementioned doctrine.
 
By Alan on August 17, 2007 12:53 PM
You can lead a horse to water...
 
By MajMike on August 17, 2007 12:54 PM
kat: Geneva III (the one about the EPWs) has provision for the state of armed conflict. the underlying problem is that the nation-state of Iran is not officially a party to that conflict. if uniformed members of that nation enter into the battle in Iraq, that is a national thing. if they come out of uniform (for plausible deniability), and fight, that's an instant war crime, by being unlawful combatants w/o national coverage. in the first case (in uniform), the presumption is that they are entitled to EPW status, handled under Geneva III (even though State Dept has a good strong set of words with the Iranian diplomatic corps). in the second case (out of uniform) the presumption is that they are unlawful combatants, handled under Geneva IV. so then the IRGC member in custody produces some kind (any kind) of documentation that purports to establish identity as a military member of Iran. so when status is in doubt, Geneva says to convene a tribunal. and that's where all the muckety-mucks get wrapped around the axle and don't let us do the tasks we know how to do and that internation law calls for (see also Gitmo). so if we can't do a tribunal to determine if he is eligible for EPW status, we're stuck with someone who appears to be an unlawful combatant (eligible for a war crimes trial), or he appears to be a saboteur or spy (eligible for an execution), but we all know damn well that he's actually a soldier in the service of his own sovereign nation. ...and no soldier deserves to be yanked around like that, even if he is a soldier from a country that my country happens to be having a wee disagreement with. if he is a uniformed, card carrying member of his own nation's military, abiding by the Laws of Land Warfare, he DESERVES the privileged treatment as an EPW.
 
By Oldloadr on August 17, 2007 1:04 PM
Alan - OK, I admit that I'm just a dumb old bomb loader, but I'm obviously missing the nuance of your explanation I requested... ;)
 
By Alan on August 17, 2007 1:52 PM
Well, what I mean is that your Republic's government has three general areas all of which run on law. You can't just abandon one third, the courts, and expect to be on top of it. You also have to engage with it or the whole of society gets beyond you and you are left vulnerable to newspaper columnists and the bias (an vested interests) of talk show hosts. Law is not complex but it is awfully complicated - basically it is a set of a million small questions to be asked in response to the full fluidity of the community. And sure lawyers are asses. I can't stand them for the most part either. But that doesn't mean you hand a thrid of your government over to them.
 
By Oldloadr on August 17, 2007 2:13 PM
You lost me now, you seem to be arguing with yourself, or agreeing with me or a little of both. I'm the one that said I'm not happy with the state of the legal profession which, in this country actually controls 2/3 of the federal government (judicial and legislative); at least W has an MBA... but I'm sure he's surrounded by lawyers. Anyway, you said, "Law is not complex but it is awfully complicated - basically it is a set of a million small questions to be asked in response to the full fluidity of the community." This is where I think the argument hinges. Your philosophy is that the law should be akin to laser surgery and used the way people vote in Chicago, early & often; whereas I am quite happy with the sledgehammer approach and then only if it is used very seldom. Of course, if it were up to me, dueling would have never been outlawed...
 
By Alan on August 17, 2007 2:17 PM
Law is a zillion piece zigsaw puzzle with 17% missing and a picture that keep changing. It attracts money and that attracts arseholes.
 
By Oldloadr on August 17, 2007 2:24 PM
Well, I can't argue with that (LOL)!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
By John of Argghhh! on August 17, 2007 2:33 PM
Law is a zillion piece zigsaw puzzle with 17% missing and a picture that keep changing. It attracts money and that attracts arseholes. That needs to go in a dictionary of pithy quotes! I *will* add it to the sidebar...
 
By Padraig on August 17, 2007 3:31 PM
Alan, I visit this blog regularly since Jonah over at NRO linked here a few years ago, but have not yet commented because I have never served in the military and I follow my grandfather's favorite saying - its better to be quiet and let people think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. So while I can never name the Whatzis, I do receive a great education about a lot of things. I am a lawyer and the contemptuous and condensending attitude shown in comments like: "No, John, Damian is circling smaller and smaller circles to get to the nub. It takes time to learn." is just too much for me not to comment. I guess some of us just need time to catch up with a great mind like yours. So please allow me a couple of days to read and digest your comments so I may understand the profound statements contained therein. I agree with John - "It has *everything* to do with it - the legal niceties of each separate incident notwithstanding." Now on to more interesting topics - where is the Octagon?
 
By John of Argghhh! on August 17, 2007 3:45 PM
Padraig - this *is* the Octagon...
 
By Alan on August 17, 2007 7:13 PM
Padraig, I am a lawyer, holding a masters of law, who may well have changed the constitution of a nation, who has almost twenty years in, who actually knows Damian...and I do not give a rat's ass. Back to your smug silence. My grandfather taught me to make a place for myself in the world. Damian and John know exactly what I mean and accept what I write and what I try to do. A shoot and run hand-puppet comment like that is less than zero.
 
By ry on August 17, 2007 9:07 PM
Let's get back to this 'competing good' and judicial activism thing, Al. There's some insults and cursewords that havent't been used in conjunction with the topic yet. ;) Really, I still have a hard time with the KofC thing. Much like the Catholic Charities being essentially forced out of the adoption business in MA it doesn't make sense to me. Down here in the lower 48 it amounts to, imo, abriging freedom of religion. YOu must rent to someone, giving tacit approval of something in direct competition to the practice of their religion, or get out of your building. I don't follow how you(general you, not specificaly Al) get there. It seems rather selective(as the taxi case, where the blind man was selective in who he brought the suit against) as there were others who offered the service desired. I understand why this had a different outcome(settlement vs a rendering) but not how the weighing of led to the decision in the lezbos favor. And we haven't had any curse words yet, or anyone storming off angry at Al. Geez, I go on the road and you all become softies.;)
 
By BillT on August 18, 2007 5:07 AM
And we haven't had any curse words yet... Completely missed guys calling each other *l@wyer*, didja? Geez, ry, wipe the coffee off your screen once in a while...
 
By Alan on August 18, 2007 8:23 AM
I think the difference between the Church and the KoC is important. The hall was rented out publicly. Once you do that you are subject to the public law. A church, by comparison, is a private matter between its adherents. Switch around the ground for discrimination and consider. Could you refuse to sell a cup of coffee to a guy who was gay, Buddhist or blind because you were religiously anti-gay, anti Buddhist or anti-blind? Could you refuse to rent an office to someone who was Jewish, in a wheelchair or from New Zealand due to your personal political beliefs? The rule in Canada is that you have to "accommodate to the point of undue hardship" when providing a publicly offered service. Though I have not read the ruling as closely as I might, I understand that the KoC just flat out rejected the reception even after the contract was signed. They did not meaningfully engage with the balancing of their rights with the rights of the renters. So you may disagree with the rule but that is the rule the HRC had to deal with. It can't reformulate the rule as it is one established by the courts above it. Christians do not get any more of a free ride than anyone else in the system so if they do not want to engage with providing services to a certain group, don't provide services to the public generally. In for a penny in for a pound.
 
By ry on August 18, 2007 6:59 PM
Coffee? We don't drink no stinkin' coffee in CA(nobody walks in LA---either). It's Lattes(sp?) here. Every drinks something with a special name and have to tell the person making the coffee for them how to do it or they complain all frickin' day about how the person f'd up their coffee---even after getting a 4th coffee for the day. I just stick with Coke-a-Cola, or Code Red(Mountain Dew). Stay away from that Jolt Cola(shudder). Al, I do disagree with the ruling. Probably because I don't agree with the definition of 'undue hardship' in realation to religion. Let us say, just for argument, that the RCC tossed ecumenacism out the window(B16 is coming close to that you know) and only allowed Catholics to use the hall for a 'donation'. Why or how does this change anything? Why or how would that make a difference? Would someone still come in and complain about it and would they, in your lay opinion(since giving legal advice is a bad idea, nobody wants to hold you to it, but just looking out for you), and would they have grounds. They defined it as being for Catholic use for a donation. Would a Presbyterian then have the grounds to scream discrimination? If the point of the law, or maybe more appropriately the spirit, is to prevent groups from stepping all over each other how did it do that in this case of the KofC? It seems like it said the basic assumption is that religion must be private and only private. That sounds like a serious abrogation of the right to practice to me, particularly when you have sects that hold as a bit of dogma that one must be rather open and public about their stuff. It's not like saying that there's a health risk in practicing vodou, which has been done.
 
By Ledger on August 18, 2007 10:28 PM
To preface my comments, I am not a lawyer but my brother is. I have listen to his legal arguments for 25 years and I can tell when he on the losing end of an argument. As the saw goes: “If you don’t have the facts on your side, pound the law. If you don’t have the law on your side pound the facts. If you have neither on you side pound the table." Judging from the amount verbiage Alan is pounding the table. I do agree with Damian, Oldloadr and John on the fairness issue of the Blind man’s case. That is to say that although the blind man got some compensation the out come was unjust. Looking at the issue from “30,000 feet” it certainly does appear that the Islamic cab drivers are exerting a disproportional amount of influence in this case. Further, it looks like a few legal men are aiding and abetting this disproportional influence. Some would say this is jihad one inch at a time. Many people have examined the methods of Islamic warfare and it is all encompassing and never ending. The use of any/all tools including taqiyya, infiltration and barristers to wage war is acceptable under the Quranic concept of war. Quranic Concept of war: “The universalism of Islam, in its all-embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political, if not strictly military. . . . The Jihad, accordingly, may be stated as a doctrine of a permanent state of war, not continuous fighting.” -Majid Khadduri See: US Army War College, The Quranic Concept of War by Joseph C. Myers It’s a must read. Myers articulates the concept of total Quranic war well.
 
By Damian on August 20, 2007 9:46 AM
It might be worthwhile to note that both Alan and another lawyer friend of mine agree that this settlement (between North Shore Taxi and Gilmour - the blind guy) doesn't preclude another blind fellow with a guide-dog filing a complaint if he feels discriminated against by a Muslim driver refusing service because of the guide-dog. And the other blind fellow could file that complaint, even if the taxi company abided by the terms of the Gilmour settlement - because the settlement doesn't circumscribe anyone else's rights under the law, as I've been made to understand it. So, personally, I'm now interested to see if any of the other sightless folks in the fine city of Vancouver feel it's right to have to wait for another cab if the first one has a problem with dogs. Because I'm curious how the BCHRC would rule if forced to actually make a decision where a Muslim's religious right conflicts with a disabled person's right to non-discriminatory service.