Fine-tuning a materialist society – Introducing the “pre-crime”!

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 17, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I am currently transcribing Canadian civil rights lawyer and journalist Ezra Levant‘s talk at a lunch at the Canadian Bar Association offices. In Canada’s increasingly illiberal regime, Levant has been charged with “hate crime” for publishing the Danish “Mohammed” cartoons.

Among the innovations he addresses is “pre-crime” – first introduced in Tom Cruise’s Minority Report, and fundamental, I suspect, to the materialist justice systems that will govern us if it is really true that Darwin loves us and has a wonderful plan for our lives. It means that you can only plead guilty once you are charged.

You cannot fail to be guilty because the crime you are accused of has not yet occurred but the system says it must occur.

In Canada, it is the law now. Here is how the law works, in Ezra’s words:

It is illegal to publish anything that is

“likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt. So [Canadian commentator Mark] Steyn is charged with this and I am charged with it.”

Let’s go through that for a second, as lawyers, and look at the words.

likely to expose That’s future tense.

Not “that you did expose them” but likely

I loved Tom Cruise’s movie, Minority Report where he played a police officer in the future where they had psychics thinking that crimes would happen. Just before the crime happened, the police swooped in and arrested the guy and said, “You were gonna kill him but we stopped ya! You’re charged with a pre-crime.”

With a pre-crime … Well, how do you plead when you are charged with a pre-crime?

[ … ]

And so when I was charged under Alberta’s Section 3, … I pled guilty.

Just think of the many applications for pre-crime in your neck of the woods.

For more, go here.

Also, just up at Mindful Hack:

Real Buddhism scholar to “neural Buddhists”: The Buddha does not infinitely morph and would never drop two grand for “meditation gear”

The Spiritual Brain gets Award of Merit at Write! Canada, plus Mario Beauregard gets tenure!

Free will: How can a guy who doesn’t believe in free will take credit for writing a book? I mean …

Evidence? If you are a materialist, trust me, you need never bother with evidence.

Alzheimer helps atheist appreciate God. Yes, really

Evolutionary psychology: Speculation rather than sound science, says new MIT Press book (= Future lies with “Clan of the Cave Bear” fiction)

World’s ten worst books?: Read them so you don’t end up living them.

Comments

scheesman It's probably simply due to climate. Even inside the U.S. there are far more people moving from the north to the south than from the south to the north. If global warming is real the trend might reverse!DaveScot_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

When I wrote my first comment, I was quite careful to avoid making any comment that might lead to a "my country is better than your country" shouting match. Personally, I am quite proud and happy to live in Canada, and see no need to defend it. I admire and respect the United States and its citizens in general and enjoy all my (frequent) visits there, and it annoys me to no end when my fellow citizens speak disparagingly of it. I will not enter into any such debate.
Canada’s population = 33,212,696 America’s population = 303,824,646 So when taking relative populations into account, any given Canadian citizen is about 20 times more likely to emigrate to the United States as a United States citizen is likely to emigrate to Canada.
Dave Scot has some fun with statistics, and seems to imply that, in order for two countries to be equally desirable for immigration/emmigration, then equal percentages of their citizens would decide to swap places each year. I guess by this standard, if Canada were on par with the U.S., we'd expect about 200,000 Americans to migrate here every year. By the same logic, if one person from the Falkland Islands (population 3000) moves to the U.S., you wouldn't consider The Falklands to be as inviting a place to live unless 100,000 Americans moved there. I would posit that the fact that the numbers are roughly equal for the U.S. and Canada suggests that the two countries are, in fact, quite similar in most of the ways that matter to most people, and the meaning of the imbalance between inflow/outflow from Canada is comparable to the meaning of the imbalance in the inflow/outflow from a single state when it is considered against the rest of the United States. I will not argue with the observation of Denyse that the imbalance that does exist is attributable to the fact that the U.S. represents a bigger market, and a bigger opportunity for many than Canada, due to its much larger population and its position as the leading nation in the world. As to the current thread's leading topic, I would like to make a suggestion that the current "fascist" tribunal system in Canada is not entirely dissimilar to McCarthyism in the U.S. Eventually the U.S. public and justice system came to its senses, and was stronger for a having triumphed over it, with McCarthyism having done harm to far more individuals than the current cabal here in the True North will have done by the time we send them packing. Finally, Dave Scot, I would certainly appreciate getting a personal tour of your own neighbourhood should I ever be in the vicinity. My wife and I especially appreciate the amazing job that has been done preserving and memorializing Civil War battlesites, having visited Gettysburg just last year, and Vicksburg several years previously.SCheesman_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

Thanks, Dave, for useful statistics. It's worth noting that some immigrants come to Canada for the express purpose of later moving to the States. They choose this route because it is easier for them, for various reasons, most of which I do not know in detail. It is not possible to know the numbers, because when people go for their Canada Immigration interview, they are not likely to be forthcoming about such an intention ... Also, keep in mind that precisely because Canada's population IS smaller, we offer fewer jobs. That is a natural brake on immigration, even of lefties who swore they would move here in large numbers when Bush won in 2004. (Few in fact did.) But it did happen once, let me tell you. Large scale American immigration occurred during the Viet Nam war, when about 100 000 draft dodgers were believed to have come, with our government's blessing. THe Trudeaupians loved them. They were in fact part of the impetus for the very loss of civil rights that we struggle with today. They assimilated just fine. In later years, I was surprised at the number of aggressive, hard core leftist draft dodgers rising through the ranks, tossing aside our traditions, pouring contempt on our values, making clear that this was a nice country for them to run. The only thing I can say in our defense is that they did not like us as we were.O'Leary_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

Instead of guessing let's look at the statistics. Sources: http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/data/DSLPR06c.shtm http://www.cic.gc.ca/English/resources/statistics/facts2006/permanent/12.asp In 2006: 10,943 Americans became Canadian citizens. 18,207 Canadians became American citizens. Aside from the obvious far greater flow of immigrants heading south if we consider the relative populations we get the real picture: From the CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html Canada's population = 33,212,696 America's population = 303,824,646 So when taking relative populations into account, any given Canadian citizen is about 20 times more likely to emigrate to the United States as a United States citizen is likely to emigrate to Canada. These are the facts on the ground and they don't argue well for Canada having many attractions for American citizens.DaveScot_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

If Obama wins it's going to happen here.tribune7_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

Hi, Mike1962 and SCheesman, Two things to keep in mind: 1. The new "shadow" justice system of the HRCs operates independently of Canada's normal justice system, which is considered quite reasonable. If anything, there is the usual complaint that we Canucks are soft on criminals. However, Canada's religious freedom rating was recently downgraded from a 1 to a 2. I will find the link and post it shortly. See: "In religious freedom, Canada slides from a 1 to a 2. Why?" So in my view SCheesman is right if we are looking at traditional Canada but Mike1962 is not wrong to be worried by the social engineering trend currently afoot. 2. As SCheesman implies, many Americans know very little about Canada. Too many assume that we have always been this way. In fact, in my "shadow falls" post, I quoted Diefenbaker's immortal lines, "I am a Canadian, a free Canadian (1960)." Then, even more sadly, the Yanks insist that if it starts to happen there, they will fight - unaware that it already IS happening there but that their legacy media largely do not report it, just as their couterparts here largely do not report it. And when the legacies do report it, they get the story wrong - lumping Mark Steyn in with neo-Nazis, for example. Except for the blogosphere, you would hardly know that all this is even happening to this day, let alone have accurate, timely, and comprehensive information. No wonder there is such an emphasis today on "regulating" the Internet and policing the blogosphere. Mark Frank, driving is a privilege for those who qualify, not a civil right. Regulation of who may drive can certainly include foreseeable harm - provided that the harm is clearly and easily foreseeable. Incompetent operation of the vehicle - for whatever cause - is one such case.O'Leary_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

scheesman I was born and raised 50 miles south of the Canadian border (near Toronto). Except for draft dodgers there's never been much allure in Canada for Americans. Plenty of Canadians find allure in the U.S. however, in my experience. One common allure is that in the United States if you have a medical problem and can pay out-of-pocket for treatment you can get treated immediately in the U.S. whereas in Canada it's illegal to step out of the government-provided health care system which often means you'll suffer, deteriorate, or die while waiting in line. Canada is a nanny-state. Americans are generally too independent to find nanny-states appealing. DaveScot_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

Dangerous driving - that's driving in a manner liable to lead to death or serious injury. Future tense. Is that also a pre-crime?Mark Frank_{June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

mike1962
Remind me never to relocate to Canada.
Every society has its faults. Let me assure you that you would find the benefits Canada offers far outweigh them. I recommend you start with a short vacation...SCheesman_{June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

Remind me never to relocate to Canada.mike1962_{June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

LIberal fascism is real. I am concerned.Jehu_{June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

Congratulations to Mario Beauregard on his receiving tenure. It's nice to see not everyone who questions the materialist science line ends up denied it.nullasalus_{June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply