Paper Planes go Straight to Hell

Why haven't I heard this before? M.I.A. samples The Clash, enjoy:

Self-Nullifying Views of Ezra Levant

Ezra Levant is a self-important, useless douchebag of a man who I would not hire to clean my toilet. According to Mike Brock this exercise of my free speech somehow imperils my free speech because free speech can do everything except criticize Ezra Levant:

"People can flagellate about Ezra Levant's ego and his "grand standing" for the camera. But they do so, at great disservice to the point he has made, no matter why he chooses to make it."

What? That's swell, it's the same logic that says that human rights commissions can clamp down on free speech. You are no better than that which you seek to criticize. I'm not working for your clampdown, Mike.

If Ezra's meaningless insults deserve praise, so do mine. You must laud me.

Rock On

I do quite like the new single by Bedouin Soundclash, St. Andrew's:

And yet it still feels a lot like a whole song made from the turnaround in The Clash's Jimmy Jazz:

Know Your Rights

Apparently remaining silent is not one of them. The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the right of police to keep on questioning suspects even after they've repeatedly asserted their rights not to talk.

Heh. So much for the notion of our bleeding-heart liberal activist judges. All this in the wake of several high-profile wrongful convictions makes you wonder what the court the was thinking. Supporters of police will no doubt say that having too many rules hinders the ability of police to "do their job." I would say that forcing police out of the tunnel-vision of badgering the first suspect their encounter is what allows them to really do their job. In a number of wrongful convictions (Morin and Truscott in particular) it appears that once police thought they had their suspect, they ignored all evidence to the contrary.

Wearing down a suspect by infringing his or her rights no doubt gives police the sort of statements that allow them to feed their tunnel vision. This ruling infringes on human rights and allows for more lazy, sloppy police work.

Rock On

Career Opportunities by The Clash:

Somebody Got Murdered

Sandinista! is too long and rather uneven, but damn, that was some of the best stuff The Clash ever did:

Okay, so this live version isn't the best vocal performance in the history of music, but still, what a kick-ass song.

For Gilles Duceppe

You should have answered Mick Jones' question before you said anything, M. Duceppe:

Quotes: Galbraith and Strummer

Here is something from the opening of The Affluent Society:

“Wealth is not without its advantages and the case to the contrary, although it has often been made, has never proved widely persuasive. But, beyond doubt, wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding. The poor man has always a precise view of his problem and its remedy: he hasn’t enough and he needs more. The rich man can assume or imagine a much greater variety of ills and he will be correspondingly less certain of their remedy.”

Which reminded me of this bit from London Calling's "I'm Not Down":

"If it's true a rich man leads a sad life
That's what they say, from day to day
Then what do the poor do with their lives?
On judgment day, with nothin' to say?"

Indeed.

Canadian Law For Dummies or Why Police Should Not Pick Judges

I've now seen another voice trying to assure me that police picking judges is okay. In this case it's from the right-wing hacks who pass as the editors of Macleans:

Nor do we have a problem with Mr. Harper's inclusion of a police representative on the JACs. It is only natural that lawyers and judges would want to monopolize the process, but the community is better served by a multiplicity of informed viewpoints.

Is the view of one group - cops now a "multiplicity?" What they - and everyone who supports this stupid plan - fail to see is that Canada's courts (like those in most industrialized nations) are adversarial in nature. The police are typically on the side of the prosecution. This manner of selecting judges is tantamount to letting the crown put a finger on the scales of justice. It doesn't matter whether we trust cops or think that they are nice or good people or whatever, in criminal law they are not a disinterested party. Watch one episode of Law & Order and you can figure whether or not the cops want to convict the accused. They are, for better or worse, part of an adversarial system.



Picture: Craig Bromell, do you want this man picking your judges?
Video: The Clash - "Police On My Back"