Scientists Create Artificial Life At Last!

LIFE AT LAST!!!

I can decodify your DNA into a simple binary computer program! Welcome to the Matrix - for real! Creating life is pretty simple:

At the atomic and molecular levels, ALL matter is formed into crystalline matrices, right? Thus even air and water molecules are tiny crystals; thus we are all LITERALLY part of an infinite mirror; reflecting everything else exactly; we are literally made (with-)in the IMAGE "of God!" Reflect on this; use your image-in-ation!

Your own genome (that which defines you physically) is a string of 3.2 billion nucleotides, each of which is a kind of necklace bead imprinted with one of the four letters:

A, T, G, and C.

If we represent these four letters by the bit combinations:

11, 10, 01, and 00,

...then we obtain a sequence of 6.4 billion bits, or 800 megabytes.

That makes the complete blueprint for your body a large, but not extremely large, computer file. It would fit on a single compact disk.

It won't be long before 3D printing technology enables anyone to create any living thing from basic inanimate elements.

AND ... HERE ... WE ... GO!!!

From here:

SCIENTISTS TAKE STEP TOWARD CREATING ARTIFICIAL LIFE

Nov 30, 2017
SOURCE: REUTERS

In a major step toward creating artificial life, U.S. researchers have developed a living organism that incorporates both natural and artificial DNA and is capable of creating entirely new, synthetic proteins, Reuters reports.

The work, published in the journal Nature, brings scientists closer to the development of designer proteins made to order in a laboratory.

Previous work by Floyd Romesberg, a chemical biologist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, showed that it was possible to expand the genetic alphabet of natural DNA beyond its current four letters:

adenine(A), cytosine(C), guanine (G) and thymine(T).

In 2014, Romesberg and colleagues created a strain of E. coli bacteria that contained two unnatural letters, X and Y.

In the latest work, Romesberg’s team has shown that this partially synthetic form of E. coli can take instructions from this hybrid genetic alphabet to make new proteins.

“This is the first time ever a cell has translated a protein using something other than G, C, A or T,” Romesberg said.

Although the actual changes to the organism were small, the feat is significant, he said in a telephone interview. “It’s the first change to life ever made.”

It’s a goal Romesberg has been working toward for the past 20 years. Creating new forms of life, however, is not the main point. Romesberg is interested in using this expanded genetic alphabet to create new types of proteins that can be used to treat disease.

In 2014, he formed a company called Synthorx Inc, which is working on developing new protein-based treatments.

“A lot of proteins that you want to use as drugs get cleared in the kidney very quickly,” Romesberg said. The new system would allow scientists to attach fat molecules to drugs to keep them in the body longer.

Romesberg is aware that the creation of semi-synthetic organisms might raise concerns of hybrid life forms spreading beyond the lab, but the system they used makes such an escape unlikely.

For example, in natural DNA, base pairs are attracted to each other through the bonding of hydrogen atoms.

Romesberg’s X and Y bases are attracted through an entirely different process, which prevents them from accidentally bonding with natural bases.

And because cells cannot make their own X and Y without the addition of certain chemicals, the semi-synthetic organisms cannot live outside of a laboratory.

Kosovo's Muslim Invaders Opt To Re-Join Turkish Albania

This proves they admit they were always foreign invaders - and it justifies another war to expel them!

From here:

KOSOVO’S PLAN B: IF NOT ACCEPTED INTO EU, (RE)JOIN ALBANIA

If Kosovo does not reach its goal of the international recognition of independence by February next year, when it will mark ten years of self-proclaimed autonomy from Serbia, Kosovo will hold a referendum on joining Albania, a source in Pristina told Sputnik Serbia.

On the eve of the 105th anniversary of the independence of Albania, which the country marks on November 28, commemorating the declaration of the autonomy from the Ottoman Empire back in 1912, the main square in the capital of Kosovo, Serbia’s majority-Albanian former province, is decorated with the red-black national flags of its neighboring state.

Kosovo’s Prime Minister Ramush Haradinaj has made Albanian Flag Day one of the self-proclaimed state’s national holidays.

According to a statement made by Kosovo’s President Hashim Thaci, “Kosovo’s borders with Albania should be opened, following the example of the European Union.”

A source in Pristina, who wished not to reveal his name, has noted to Sputnik Serbia that “such synchronization of efforts is not as naive as it seems at first sight.”

He further pointed out that even though ten years has passed since the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo, it is still far from being an internationally recognized sovereign state. And the decade-old euphoria among those who supported the independent Kosovo has faded.

“Kosovan leaders must offer something to their citizens, so obviously they have moved on to plan B: “if they do not want to accept us into the EU, we will move on to Albania.” In other words, if nothing changes, they will revive their old threat and hold a referendum on joining Albania,” the source suggested.

He further suggested that Ramush Haradinaj might have made the holiday of a neighboring country a state holiday of his own “so-called state” not for the sake of preserving cultural values.

“It would have been the same as if Germany celebrated Holland’s Independence Day, or vice versa (on the condition, of course, that Kosovo is an independent state). The Flag Day of November 28 is the same very day when the Albanians adopted a document proclaiming the independence of Albania at a meeting in the city of Vlore in 1912. This document, adopted by the People’s Assembly, which included representatives of four regions with Albanian populations (Kosovo, Shkodra (Scutar) Janina and Bitola vilayets), created Albania,” he explained.

On the other hand, he noted, Thaci’s statements that the borders of Kosovo and Albania should be opened following the example of within the EU, is just “hot air.”

“There are practically no borders between Kosovo and Albania. What Thaci is trying to do is gain official support for abolishing these borders on paper, by explaining that this is not an association, but a simplification of communication between the citizens of the two countries. Of course, Thaci would not have said this if he was not given a green light to do it. Besides, I am sure that it was also not without the blessing from Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama, who has serious tensions with the European Union over the EU’s treatment of Kosovo and Albania,” the source opined.

The authorities in Pristina, he asserted, are trying to revive the “national spirit” in their citizens in order to raise their approval ratings, because this is very important for achieving success on the international arena.

“It is a well-known fact that for Europe, the Albanian factor is a nightmare, as it simultaneously affects five countries in the Balkans [supposedly Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia and the self-proclaimed Kosovo]. Albanians are aware of this, and this awareness makes them stronger. And if we add the support of the US, and, moreover, Turkey, then what else can we expect,” the source stated.

During her visit to Pristina, Albanian Defense Minister Olta Xhacka said that Tirana supports the transformation of the Kosovo Security Forces into the Armed Forces. Albania is a NATO member state, and the army of Kosovo would, according to the suggested plan, fall under direct control of the North Atlantic Alliance, suggesting that Kosovo’s integration into Albania is already underway.

RELATED:

Ulterior motives for the Arab invasion of Bosnia

Pamela Geller

Dateline Sarajevo, Bosnia, Europe – 2017: The only Nobel Laureate from Yugoslavia, Ivo Andric, a Catholic Bosnian of either Serb or Croat heritage, once opined very deeply about the mental reality of Bosnia and Herzegovina region dividing Serbia and Croatia:

“Four religions live on this narrow hilly and scarce piece of land [Bosnia], each of which is exclusive and strictly separated from the rest. All live under one sky and the same country, but each of these four groups has the heart of their spiritual life far away, in the other world in Rome, in Moscow, in Constantinople, in Mecca, in Jerusalem, or God himself knows where – just not there where he was born and where will die. And each of them thinks that her goodness and her benefit are conditioned by the damage and the insinuation of each of the three other religions and that their progress can only be at its expense, and each of them has made the greatest virtue from intolerance, and everyone expects salvation from outside, and each from the opposite direction.”

In his work that earned him the Nobel Prize For Literature (The Bridge On The Drina), Andric described vividly the evils that the Moslem occupation of this rugged corner of Europe had wrought, including the method of khazouk, wherewith the Christi8ans were impaled at the stakes for daring to resist the Turks – who were the chief defenders of Islam during the later Middle Ages period. In his quote above (taken from his doctoral dissertation), Andric is describing the way in which the locals victimize themselves by placing themselves at the center of disputes and wars of the big powers with whom they selectively find common cause. And all this just to overcome a vast and congenital inferiority complex!

It is this mental deficiency, I believe, that has reared yet again its ugly head to act as a broker for a firesale of the Bosnian land that is given hand over fist to non-Slavic Moslem foreigners, the Arabs who come there on a jihad known to them only. Meanwhile, the provincial Bosnian salesmen bask in Arab oil’s silver currency that the Moslem Judas has brought to Sarajevo.

Bottom line: future terrorists are nesting in the Islamic incubator of Bosnia centered in Sarajevo for future use inside the EU – after the disastrous decision to bring over Bosnia into the EU will have been made by socialist European bureaucrats. The Arabs and their offspring expect to spring into Europe from Bosnia at some point in the future. It is all part and parcel of the islamization of Europe agenda.

ARABS ARE PURCHASING BOSNIAN LAND CHIEFLY FROM SERBS IN A MASSIVE UNDERTAKING FOR REASONS UNKNOWN

It is mainly land owned by citizens of Serbian nationality, while there are also individual cases that the land was sold by Bosniaks and Croats. The number of citizens from Arab countries visiting BiH (‘Bosnia and Herzegovina’) is growing year after year, and many of them buy and develop the real estate across the country, where numerous “Arab settlements” have already been built.

In the area of ​​Ilijas municipality in the vicinity of Sarajevo in the past few years, the Arabs have purchased between 3,000 and 3,500 dulums, or about 350 hectares of land.

The land price per square meter is therefore over 50% higher, which, according to the head of the municipality, Akif Fazlic, is a real problem for the local population who wants to buy land for the construction of residential houses.

– The positive side is that the budget of the municipality is higher. Based on real estate sales last year, we collected nearly EUR 1 million, and about 70 percent, or about 700,000 euros, was derived from Arab investors – Fazlic told Tanjug.

We also have income from paying rent and editing construction land, so it also increases our budget, he added.

Asked what is the interest of Arab investors to buy land in BIH, he says his assessment is that they want to spend a part of it on a short vacation, at most staying only for a few months, keeping in mind the arid climate in their home country in the Middle East.

He says there are individual cases among the residents of this municipality who complain about the arrival of Arabs, stating that “dilemmas” always exist.

“We all think about these dilemmas, though I’m always looking at the world’s processes, and they show that we have more and more migration and more open-minded real estate markets,” he said.

We will see that this process is positive and I hope that it will not have any other connotations, he says, adding that there are mechanisms if there are different connotations to stop them. It notes that the state should also play its part.

Fazlic explains that land in Sarajevo Canton is being purchased for shopping centers and hotels, and in the vicinity of the weekend settlements. One weekend settlement, says, was already built in the municipality of Ilijas.

– Many more locations have been purchased, and they are in the procedures of granting, issuing permits and all that is needed for these settlements, their investors are leading the process of construction and then selling on the real estate market and facilities – says Fazlic.

The residents of the Municipality of Ilijas have noticed a growing sale of real estate in the past five years, and they react differently. They note that they do not have problems with their new neighbors, but their growing presence is “enigmatic”. 

“What I know, it’s interesting, all of a sudden, we do not know why they are buying, are they so rich and investing in real estate? The real reason is not known. In our municipality they buy enough, settlements are built, villages with 30, 40 houses. They settle down, they buy apartments – says one of the residents.

University professor and analyst Enver Kazaz believes that much more Arabs go to tourist destinations across Europe than in BiH, and that some Arab countries invest significantly more, for example, in Serbia than in BiH.

– BIH is alive because it is traditionally emerging as a country where there is a danger of some kind of political Islam. Arab tourists who come here and leave money are simply the victims of such a stigmatization, and on the other hand, those who are rich and buy land through illegal firms need not be spared by BiH law – said Kazaz Tanjugu.

Nedžad Latić, editor of the portal “The Bosnia Times”, believes that the motive for those who buy real estate is the predisposition for citizenship, because they expect BiH to join the EU.

– This is roughly the motive of the majority who are buying, but it is most likely that they were wiped out and that they are some virtual projects. There is no substantial investigation yet, he told the Serbian newsagency “Tanjug”.

It also says that some of the projects have been implemented and that they are closed-type settlements. Bosnian media report that the massive purchase of property for Arab citizens was checked by security agencies in BiH at the end of last year.

An investigation conducted by the Foreign Affairs Service, which operates in the Ministry of Security of BiH, has determined that such transactions involve a large number of “phantom” companies that have minimal initial capital and invest large sums of money.

In December, 691 agencies were involved in dealing with such transactions, and even 499 were not found at the registered addresses. The official number of data shows that the number of Arab arrivals in BiH is increasing.

Referring to the Border Police data, Dnevni Avaz announced that 42,627 Arabs entered BiH in the last seven months, mostly from Emirates 19,887 and then from Kuwait 11,103.

Saudi Arabia’s citizens numbered 9,385, while Qatar accounted for 1,531 for the first seven months. At least they came from Jordan – 721.

According to the data of tourist boards, they are written by the Bosnian media, they stay on average five to ten days, while they do not have the number of rent or coupons to stay for up to a month.

Enemedia Revealed

From here:

1,000-member secretive progressive journalist group uncovered

August 6, 2014

By Media Trackers

UPDATE: Names, activities of secretive progressive journalist group revealed

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A prominent CNN commentator, the top two political reporters for The Huffington Post, a Reuters reporter, the editor of The Nation magazine, a producer for Al Jazeera America television, a U.S. News & World Report columnist, and approximately two dozen Huffington Post contributors are among the more than 1,000 members of Gamechanger Salon.

Founded by leftwing activist Billy Wimsatt, the group is a secretive digital gathering of writers, opinion leaders, activists and political hands who share information, ideas and strategy via a closed Google group.

The group’s existence was discovered by Media Trackers through an open records request filed with a University of Wisconsin professor who happened to be a member of the network.

Sally Kohn, formerly a Fox News contributor, now works for CNN reliably echoing pro-Obama Administration talking points and championing leftwing ideas as a network commentator. Kohn is also a member of Gamechanger Salon, and e-mails show that she occasionally approached the group’s membership and asked them to promote her television appearances.

“I’m guest co-hosting CNN’s Crossfire tonight at 6:30pm EST, with fellow co-host Newt Gingrich. I would be grateful for folks (a) helping spread the word on Facebook, Twitter, etc to encourage people to tune in; and (b) tuning in and live tweeting during the show,” Kohn wrote to the group on January 14 of this year.

In another e-mail, Kohn pitched her TED talk about working as a liberal at Fox News. “I would be grateful for any shares and reactions. Here is a straightforward, sample tweet[:] Watch @sallykohn’s amazing TED talk on emotional correctness: on.ted.com/Kohn” she wrote. “Thanks for everything all of you do every day to make the world a better place!” she signed off.

Amanda Terkel, the “Senior Political Reporter and Politics Managing Editor at The Huffington Post,” is a member of Gamechanger Salon along with The Huffington Post’s Washington bureau chief, Ryan Grim.

In mid-July, Terkel and Grim jointly wrote a piece about a leftwing effort to push Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) to run for president. The pair of reporters heavily quoted Erica Sagrans, a fellow member of Gamechanger Salon and leading organizer of the “Ready For Warren” effort, and cited Billy Wimsatt’s support for the project. Wimsatt’s work as founder of Gamechanger Salon and the reporters’ own membership in the group, along with Sagrans’ membership, went unreported.
In a subsequent piece Terkel again reported on the effort to recruit Warren for a presidential bid, and a previous piece by Grim contrasted Warren with presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

A former New York Times freelance columnist who now works as an energy and commodities reporter for Thomson Reuters is also a member of Gamechanger Salon. Anna Louie Sussman is listed as an “investigative reporter and journalist” on the Gamechanger Salon membership list, and while her beat focuses on energy issues, she has also writes about “local and international human rights and social justice issues” according to her website.

Katrina vanden Heuvel is the editor and publisher of The Nation magazine, a prominent and well-known periodical of leftwing political and social thought. She is also a member of Gamechanger Salon and a regular opinion writer for the online edition of The Washington Post.

A late-July column for the Post by vanden Heuvel entitled “Building a progressive alternative to ALEC” hit on a theme regularly mentioned on Gamechanger Salon: liberals must build an alternative to the American Legislative Exchange Council.

Lisa Graves, who leads the Madison, Wisconsin-based Center for Media and Democracy, is also a member of Gamechanger Salon, and – according to e-mails reviewed by Media Trackers – regularly promotes material developed by CMD to attack ALEC and the right-of-center lawmakers who tend to make up the majority of ALEC’s active legislative membership.

Vanden Heuvel suggested in her column that liberals support the efforts of the American Legislative and Issue Campaign Exchange – ALICE (a leftwing counterpart to ALEC) – and the Progressive States Network. Gamechanger Salon member Prof. Joel Rogers of the University of Wisconsin Madison founded ALICE. Vanden Heuvel in a 2012 column for the Post wrote about Rogers founding ALICE.

Not once does she appear to disclose her membership in Gamechanger Salon along with some of the very people she writes about.

Jordan Flaherty was, as of last year, a producer for Al Jazeera America television. He is also listed as a member of Gamechanger Salon and for a while he occasionally blogged for The Huffington Post.
In addition to working at the left-leaning American Sustainable Business Council, David Brodwin writes an online column for U.S. News & World Report. Brodwin is a member of Gamechanger Salon, and on July 14 he published a column arguing that small business owners support a minimum wage increase. Fascinatingly, the Obama Administration’s U.S. Department of Labor relies on Brodwin’s American Sustainable Business Council to argue that very point in a recent “fact-sheet” advocating for a minimum wage hike.

Dozens of members of the leftwing network have contributed columns to The Huffington Post, and others have written opinion pieces for several other publications. The full extent of the network’s activity and effectiveness at amplifying and coordinating left-leaning messaging campaigns has yet to be fully explored.

Authored by Brian Sikma

Migrants Do NOT Improve the Economy!

From The Ottawa Citizen, Monday, November 20, 2017 P.# A7.

IMMIGRATION POLICY NOT IMPROVING THE ECONOMY

Costs are far exceeding the benefits, writes James Bissett, former head of Canada's Immigration Service (1985-1990).

The Trudeau government's plan to bring in close to one million new immigrants within the next three years should be of serious concern to Canadians. Next year alone, the numbers are expected to reach 310,000 but to that total must be added approximately 900,000 temporary foreign workers and foreign students who will be living in Canada.

Since most of the newcomers will be settling in three of our major cities, the pressure on infrastructure and local services will be extreme.

Canada's current immigration policy is based on myths.

All of our political parties, most of the news media, big business interests, the banks and land developers favour large-scale immigration and justify this on the grounds that immigration helps our economy, strengthens the labour force and alleviates our aging problem.

In fact, only about 15 to 17 per cent of the annual flow consists of immigrants selected because they have skills, education and experience. Because of the pressure to get high numbers, few of these workers are seen or interviewed by visa officers.

The selection is done by a paper review.

The remainder of the movement is made up of the spouses and children accompanying the workers, family members sponsored by relatives in Canada, immigrants selected by the provinces (who do not have to meet federal selection criteria), refugees and humanitarian cases.

The truth is that the government has lost control of the immigration program by abandoning its traditional role of selecting our immigrants and controlling their numbers. Canadians have been brainwashed into believing we are doomed if we don't keep immigration levels high. We are also told that our immigration policies are acknowledged to be the envy of the world. These arguments are wrong.

There is no evidence that immigration is essential for economic growth. The 1985 MacDonald Royal Commission Report concluded that immigration did not contribute to economic growth and, in fact, caused a decline in per capita income and real wages.

In 1989, a two-year study by the Department of Health and Welfare supported the MacDonald report and stated there was no argument for increased population growth and that immigration was not the answer to the aging of the population.

In 1991, the Economic Council of Canada reached the same conclusion.

A more recent study by Prof. Herbert Grubel of Simon Fraser University and economist Patrick Grady found that in 2002 alone, the costs in services and benefits received by the 2.5 million immigrants between 1990 and 2002 exceeded the taxes paid by these immigrants by $23 billion.

It is not surprising that this study has received little media coverage in Canada.

The government has lost control of the immigration program.

Studies outside of Canada have come to the same conclusion about the economic value of immigration.

In Britain, a report by the House of Lords in 2008 warned that the government's plan to admit 190,000 immigrants per year would achieve little benefit and would seriously affect the availability of housing and the quality of public services. The report also criticized the government for misleading the people by justifying immigration levels when they provided no economic benefit, were not needed to fill labour shortages and did not help the state's pension fund.

Perhaps the most insidious argument still being advanced by government and other advocates of mass immigration is the belief that we need immigration to provide the workers needed to replace our aging population. This argument is obviously flawed if, as in Canada, the immigration movement has a similar age structure as the receiving country; then, immigration does not help the aging problem - indeed it may well exacerbate it.

In 2009, a study by the C.D. Howe Institute found that to offset our declining birth rate and maintain the ratio of five taxpayers to support the benefits of one pensioner until 2050, our immigration levels would have to reach 165.4 million. And in that single year, 2050, the annual movement would have to be seven million immigrants. The study recommended that raising the retirement age to 67 would be much more effective.

Sadly, we have allowed our political parties to use and exploit immigration for political purposes - with all parties competing for the ethnic vote by calling for increasing numbers. This is a cynical approach, patronizing to immigrants and damaging to the country. It is time for comprehensive reform.

James Bissett is former head of Canada's immigration service
(1985-1990).

Inmates Can Legally Blame Prison Code to Attack Guards

From The Ottawa Citizen, Saturday, November 18, 2017, P.#A3, and from here:


'Prison code' can form part of an inmate's defence: Federal Court

Andrew DuffyANDREW DUFFY

Published on: November 17, 2017; Updated: November 17, 2017 6:08 PM EST

ADJUSTCOMMENTPRINT

A Kingston inmate who says he joined a penitentiary revolt only because he feared violating the “prison code” has won the right to use those unwritten rules in his defence.

Mohamed Akhlaghi, 40, told a discipline hearing at Collins Bay Institution that he would have been stabbed if he didn’t abide by the code and follow other inmates on J Range, a maximum-security unit, as they staged a protest on the evening of Sept. 2, 2016.

That argument was rejected by the prison’s disciplinary court chairman, who said that recognizing duress as a defence would lead to “anarchy” inside Canada’s correctional system. 

Akhlaghi appealed, and in a recent ruling, Federal Court Justice Henry Brown upheld the inmate’s right to draw upon the prison code in answering discipline charges.

The discipline court was wrong, Brown said, to ignore Akhlaghi’s contention that he would be punished under the harsh tenets of the “prison code” if he didn’t join the protest. The code refers to the rough and informal set of rules that governs inmates’ daily lives.

“I have come to the conclusion that the independent chairperson acted unreasonably when he held that duress was not a defence in law,” Brown said in his judgment.

He ordered the case back to the prison discipline court for a new hearing.

Akhlaghi was among the inmates who refused a general order to return to their cells and “lock up” for a head count at 10:30 p.m. on Sept. 2. 

Normally, inmates retreat inside their cells when the announcement is made over the public address system. Air locks on their doors are then closed for the night.

On the evening of Sept. 2, however, the four guards preparing for lock up found all the inmates on J Range out of their cells. Doors were blocked open with shoes and footlockers.

Despite repeated orders to lock up, the inmates didn’t budge. The guards refused to enter the range because similar episodes in the past had proved to be a trap.

The standoff — it flowed from an inmate stabbing earlier in the day — lasted two hours before the inmates agreed to return to their cells. All of the participants were charged with disobeying a justifiable order.

In testimony at his disciplinary court hearing, Akhlaghi admitted that he failed to follow the order, but said “there would have been problems” had he been the only one to go into his cell.

“I couldn’t stay on that range,” he testified. “I couldn’t stay in Collins Bay maximum security. I would have been stabbed just like the other person.”

Akhlaghi, serving time for drug possession and other offences, had been transferred from medium to maximum security because of an earlier problem with other inmates. His sentence began in 2007. “I was already on, you know, sticky grounds to begin with,” he explained, “so I wasn’t going to be the only one to lock up to have more problems.”

His defence lawyer argued that Akhlaghi acted under duress since he faced the “implicit threat” of bodily harm or death under the prison code, which dictated that inmates stick together in a standoff with prison guards.

The chairperson said accepting such an argument at a disciplinary hearing would create “chaos” in the prison system.

Brown, however, said that duress is a complete defence in law — one recognized by both the Criminal Code and the Supreme Court of Canada.

To prove duress, a defendant must demonstrate a number of elements, including an explicit or implied threat of bodily harm, a reasonable belief the threat would be carried out, and an inability to escape the situation.

Lisa Kerr, assistant professor of law at Queen’s University, said the case sends a clear message to prison officials that they must apply the law rather than their own ideas. 

“In our legal system, there’s a fundamental principle that you cannot hold someone responsible for actions that were not morally voluntary: We only hold people responsible if they did something when they could have reasonably chosen otherwise,” Kerr said.

“Inmates are entitled to make that kind of argument too. In fact, the defence of duress is likely more important in the prison context given the pressures that inmates often face.”

She did not believe the decision would lead to chaos inside the correctional system.

To Renew Law Licenses, Ontario Lawyers Now Required to be Racist Communists

From The Ottawa Citizen, Friday November 24, 2017, P.#A11, and from here:

Lawyers face their own fight on free speech

We can't defend our clients if we don't defend ourselves, argues Jay Cameron

Cameron: Ontario lawyers now face their own free-speech battle

Jay CameronJAY CAMERON
Published on: November 23, 2017 | Last Updated: November 23, 2017 12:32 PM EST

Apparently, it’s no longer enough for lawyers in Ontario to know the law and their ethical obligations. Starting this year, the Law Society of Upper Canada requires every lawyer in the province to “create and abide by an individual Statement of Principles that acknowledges (their) obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally” – and to do so as part of their 2017 Annual Statement.

The Annual Statement is a licensing requirement.

Many lawyers have publicly rebelled at the Law Society’s attempts to coerce both their speech and their behaviour. And given the current debate about free speech in our universities, the measure bears examination.

In following the story, I reviewed the Law Society’s Barrister’s Oath (bylaw 4, section 21). The language is fairly typical, including pledges to act ethically, not promote lawsuits on frivolous pretences, conduct all cases faithfully, etc. One line of the oath stood out to me, however: “I shall champion the rule of law and safeguard the rights and freedoms of all persons.” 

It would certainly seem that the Law Society cannot require lawyers to waive their constitutional rights to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression by signing a “personal” inclusivity statement against their will, and at the same time require them to take a solemn oath to “champion the rule of law” (what about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?) or “safeguard the rights and freedoms of all persons” (what about the rights and freedoms of lawyers?). 

The statement creates a new paradigm, and a new work reality for every lawyer, and it would seem that the Lawyer’s Oath needs to be re-written, and re-sworn by every lawyer to reflect new obligations. The year 2017 is nearly over, and the annual statements are due soon. Any lawyer who intends to conform under duress and create an “individual” statement, should also be willing to swear to the following: 

1. I pledge to renounce my own ideas (which I suddenly realize are bad, now that my licence may be at stake) and embrace those of the Law Society (which I never realized were so good until I realized I may have a hard time feeding my family if I don’t agree with them); 

2. I pledge to embrace insincerity, and say things I don’t mean, and mean things I don’t say, and do so in a manner that sounds convincing and compelling to all around me;

3. I pledge to promptly call the practice adviser if I go off-script in regard to the promotion of inclusivity, or if I lose the leaflets that say what I’m supposed to think that is;

4. I pledge to seek counselling if I begin to suffer depression from mouthing platitudes that aren’t mine – but solemnly recognize and agree that I would rather eat and be a hypocrite than not eat at all; 

5. I pledge to retweet whatever the Law Society of Upper Canada tweets within eight hours (three hours if it has to do with inclusivity), and pledge to neither fondly remember nor yearn for any of my former freedoms; they are shadows that I have already forgotten. 

The coerced signing away of one’s rights and individuality as a condition of practising law in Ontario is profound. Alexis de Tocqueville famously warned us about the tyranny of the majority, and its obsession not with liberty, but with the god of equality that it pursues above all else. Coerced worship of the idol is a sign of the death of a “free and democratic society,” which the charter establishes as Canada’s ideal.  

The current oath includes a pledge to uphold the freedoms of all persons. That includes lawyers. It’s time for every lawyer in Ontario to consider carefully this: If they can’t determine to stand for their own rights, how will they stand for anyone else’s?

Calgary lawyer Jay Cameron is Litigation Manager with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (www.jccf.ca). Twitter: @Juriscameron

UPDATE!

From P.NP4 of the Ottawa Citizen, Saturday, December 2,  2017, and from here: 

Ontario lawyers must say they promote equality, or else after law society rejects exemption for conscientious objectors

An Ottawa lawyer compared the controversial statement of principles to Bart Simpson writing 'I will not be a bad boy again' on the blackboard — an empty gesture

Free speech threatened by new rules, lawyers say

The Law Society of Upper Canada office in Toronto. Jack Boland/Postmedia/File

Lawyers and paralegals in Ontario will be required to adopt and abide by a controversial statement of principles in order to remain licensed by the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The rule was officially adopted late last year, one of many reforms to address systemic racism in the province’s legal profession. But it has not yet been enforced, and a recent motion sought to allow members to abstain from making the statement on grounds of conscience or faith.

After a heated and protracted debate at the law society’s governing convocation, this motion failed at midday Friday, meaning the rule is valid and will be enforced.

The official tally was not immediately available, but the vote was not overwhelmingly against. Many expressed support for the exemption for conscientious objectors, proposed by prominent Toronto lawyer Joe Groia.

Friday’s debate was not mainly about the content of the statement. Benchers on all sides repeatedly declared that support for diversity and equality was a fundamental value universally shared in the legal community. The objection was on the requirement to declare one’s obligation to promote these values, which Groia described as compelled speech.

Even if someone means it, they should not be forced to say it, he argued. If they do not mean it, the statement is hollow and false. Groia said the law society should “find other and better ways to advance those goals” of equality and diversity.

One bencher compared it to a U.S. case about forcing children to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, which was rejected as a violation of free speech.

The reasons offered in support of Groia’s failed motion were varied.

Some were practical, such as the inevitable litigation when a lawyer decides to violate this rule and challenge it in court. This will come after a string of other cases that the LSUC has fought in court, at no small expense.

Some were procedural, pointing out that the Law Society first said the content would not be formally dictated, but then offered a number of templates without being clear on what other versions might be acceptable.

• Marni Soupcoff: Law society’s advertising restrictions rooted in elitist mentality
• NP View: Law society’s controversial statement of principles should be struck down
• Christie Blatchford: It’s 1984 all over again for Ontario lawyers arguing against compelled speech

Groia himself questioned whether the mandatory statement would even do anything to achieve or promote the goals of equality and inclusion.

“What do we gain by offending so many men and women of conscience and faith?” he said. “Why do we stubbornly refuse to fix the mess we have created?”

One of the most striking defences of Groia’s motion came from bencher Anne Vespry, an Ottawa lawyer who compared the statement to Bart Simpson writing “I will not be a bad boy again” on the blackboard — an empty gesture.

She argued that, while it is possible some objectors to the statement are trying to conceal their own prejudice, many supporters are “wrapping themselves in the flag of equality and diversity” as a way to bully others into submission. She said she used to think disagreement was always the product of inadequate evidence, misunderstanding, poor application of rules, wilful blindness, or malice. But she has come to realize that conscience and faith can lead people of good will to vastly different perspectives that are not captured by simple rules.

She described herself as brown, biologicaly female, gender butch, queer, with a learning disability, mild physical disabilities depending on what the situation requires, and mild to moderate post traumatic stress disorder. She also used to work for Glad Day Bookshop, which sells literature aimed at a queer audience and has been at the centre of many legal fights over obscenity laws and free expression.

“I believe in free speech. I believe that controlling speech is a bad thing. When someone else controls our dialogue, people suffer,” she said. “Government censorship, government control of language killed people. People died because they did not get access to information.”

“Ambiguity is antithetical to clarity,” she said, and the statement of principles is “classically ambiguous language,” which can be interpreted “to mean kind of nothing at all.”

Before the vote, she said the failure of the motion would mean she will “look for a new career.”

Bencher Raj Anand observed that the stars have to align perfectly in order to achieve even the most modest reforms against systemic racism, and this one should not be derailed because some people see it as an affront to their rights.

“Diversity and inclusion is not a zero sum game,” he said.

Bencher Sandra Nishikawa, counsel at the Ontario Human Rights Commission, who voted against the motion, said the debate had become academic. She said it elevates the abstract value of free speech over the real concerns of real marginalized people.

“We are not in a face saving exercise here,” she said. “Equality is fundamental to everything we do.”

Canadian University Fascists Libel Jordan Peterson

From the Ottawa Citizen/National Post, 11 November, 2017, P.#NP3 and here:

Christie Blatchford: Thought police strike again as Wilfrid Laurier grad student is chastised for showing Jordan Peterson video

Her supervising professor told her that by showing the video to her 'Canadian Communication in Context' class, 'it basically was like … neutrally playing a speech by Hitler …'

NP Explained: Jordan Peterson gender pronoun position

Christie Blatchford

November 10, 2017
8:42 PM EST

A Wilfrid Laurier University teaching assistant has been identified as “transphobic” and sanctioned for last week showing her class an excerpt of a video debate involving the controversial University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson.

In fact, her supervising professor, Nathan Rambukkana, told her that by showing the video to her “Canadian Communication in Context” class, “it basically was like … neutrally playing a speech by Hitler …”

Lindsay Shepherd, a 22-year-old graduate student at the school in Waterloo, Ont., was informed that merely by showing the clip, taken from a televised debate between Peterson and Nicholas Matte, a lecturer at the U of T’s Sexual Diversity Studies program, she was “legitimizing” Peterson’s views about genderless pronouns.

She has been told that she must now submit her lesson plans to her supervisor in advance, that he may sit in on her next few classes and she must “not show any more controversial videos of this kind.”

Jordan Peterson speaks to a group at the Carleton Place Arena on Thursday, June 15, 2017. Darren Brown / Ottawa Citizen/Ottawa Sun

The debate was originally aired last fall on the well-regarded TVO news show The Agenda, hosted by Steve Paikin, when Peterson’s YouTube lectures about the dangers of the then-looming federal Bill C-16 first went viral.

It was in the context of this bill, which added “gender expression” and “gender identity” to both the federal human rights act and the Criminal Code, that Peterson first publicly criticized the use of gender-neutral pronouns such as “zie”, “zher” and “they” and found himself in a free speech battle.

The bill received royal assent in June and is now law.

Shepherd was this week hauled into a meeting with Rambukkana, program co-ordinator Herbert Pimlott and Adria Joel, acting manager of the “Gendered Violence Prevention and Support” program.

She was told that after she showed the five-minute video clip, “one student/many students” — the group refused to say how many students were unhappy because that information is deemed confidential — complained that she had created “a toxic climate.”

Jordan Peterson, Canadian clinical psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, poses for a portrait at his home in Toronto, Ontario, May 31, 2017

Spunkily, she asked if she was supposed to shelter students from controversial ideas. “Am I supposed to comfort them?” she asked at one point, bewildered, and said it was antithetical to the spirit of a university.

Rambukkana then informed her that since Bill C-16 was passed, even making such “arguments run(s) counter” to the law.

WHY ARE PEOPLE'S POTENTIAL "HURT FEELINGS" NOW ENSHRINED IN LAW?!

In the 35-minute meeting, where she was outnumbered three to one, Shepherd vigorously defended herself, explaining she had been scrupulously even-handed and not taken a position herself or endorsed Peterson’s remarks before showing the video, and that her students seemed engaged by it, and had expressed a wide range of opinions.

But that was part of the problem, she was told — by presenting the matter neutrally, and not condemning Peterson’s views as “problematic” or worse, she was cultivating “a space where those opinions can be nurtured.”

Wilfrid Laurier university campus in downtown Brantford. RANDY RICHMOND / THE LONDON FREE PRESS / QMI AGENCY

The two professors seemed suspicious that perhaps Shepherd was a plant of Peterson’s, and were alert to any hint that she was a closet supporter of the dread “alt-right” movement they both mentioned.

Rambukkana asked her off the top if she wasn’t from the University of Toronto, and Shepherd said no.

In fact, she got her B.A. (Honours with Distinction) in Communication, with a minor in political science, from Simon Fraser University and is a native of Burnaby, B.C. She was accepted to Wilfrid Laurier on a $4,500 graduate scholarship, in addition to her TA funding package.

Ah, said Rambukkana, “so you’re not one of Jordan Peterson’s students.”

He then told her Peterson was “highly involved with the alt-right,” that he had bullied his own students and asked, “do you see why this is not something … that is up for debate?”

When Shepherd protested that it is very much up for debate, Rambukkana chastised her by saying the discussion creates an “unsafe learning environment.”

An opportunity to make their displeasure known’: Pronoun professor denied government grant

David Reevely: ‘See if you can take the social-justice warriors out at the top,’ Jordan Peterson says

Chris Selley: Jordan Peterson, hero of the anti-PC crowd, just keeps winning

He then told her the university was being “blanketed” by white power posters, and asked if she would show a class a white supremacist in debate. Shepherd replied, “if that was the content of the week (the lesson), yeah, maybe.”

At one point, she was asked how she would feel, if she was a trans person, seeing a video of Peterson, and she said she didn’t know, but that she believed a university’s job was to make its students stronger.

“Is it your position these students are not strong?” one of the professors immediately demanded.

Pimlott seemed obsessed with scholarly qualifications — his own and Peterson’s alleged lack of same — and at one point expressed amusement at the way Peterson characterized the left as being in power in academia and “you’re going to be in prison” if you don’t use people’s preferred pronouns or profess loyalty to cultural Marxism.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, Pimlott said, but the university has a “duty to make sure we’re not furthering … Jordan Peterson.”

They were oblivious to the fact that they themselves were proving him right by holding the 2017 equivalent of the “struggle sessions” so beloved in Mao’s China.

Shepherd is now sufficiently disillusioned, she told Postmedia Friday, that she is “about 70-per-cent sure I will be leaving Wilfrid Laurier after this semester is over.”

None of Rambukkana, Pimlott or Joel replied to emails from Postmedia.