- Political -
Satire & Parody
(how long before they come after me for this one?)
Directly to the Satire & Parody;
Canadians License to Mock - Satire - Ridicule and/or Parody;
This section is long overdue, it is time to use satire and parody to mock and ridicule those fools and evil-doers who rule over us like demented child kings or queens. That in doing so, maybe, just maybe, some voters will laugh so hard or be shocked out of their "we live in a magical kingdom where nothing ever goes wrong thanks to our great, wise and powerful leaders and bad things only happen to bad people", political correct delusion to start and thinking for themselves and question - maybe to start learning as well. Also remember that as in the laws of physics to render a force or wave or event to a zero state of activity requires an equal and opposite force or wave or event. That is to say if you want a person to see both points of view they should have their minds in the middle to see equally in both direction and not so far out in left field they don't even know there is any where else. Because of the extreme lengths that are being used to put forward the political point of view/propaganda/perception of reality by the right wing-nut-cases in their effort to create their new fascist vision of a total control government with perfect security - the Electronic Dictatorship - an equal and opposite response may appear (to the untrained and educated eye/mind), as tasteless. But it is necessary to for fill the social function it sets out to accomplish. So if people think that the satire and parody is greater than what they think is in "good taste" then maybe they should be eating what the rest of us have had to.
One more point, when I was growing up there was a war going on (as usual it seems), that people opposed as it was unjustifiable, the Vietnam War. To oppose it and the politicians who demanded we support and fight it blindly, there were many stories printed in the new media of the day, what were called underground comix(s) and they had little regard for what was in good taste. Their message was clear, necessary and justified as thousands were dieing every month - they play a much needed role then, as the main stream media was not the voice/friend of taxpayers. Sorry if I sound like someone who not only still remembers historical events of his life time but knows our history beyond his life time and has learned lessons from it.
Another important point is that Democracy is rightfully based on distrust of government, its institutions, agents and bureaucrats (gun carrying or otherwise). The very idea of self government is based on the idea of accountability in real time not waiting for the King or Queen to die and hope for the best next time round. That the people will create the world they wish to live in and not depend on their ruler to guess at it, if they even care to. After all, why have there been Democratic revolutions? It was not because people loved their governments / leaders, it was because they were willing to risk their lives to get rid of it, as life had become so unbearable under it. They had every reason to distrust and never believe their abusers promises that it will ever get better or the falsehoods that they were powerless and agreeing only makes things worse. So from distrusting, Democracy is born and what is an election but a bloodless revolution, that throws out a bad government in a more orderly way than civil war? Over the years people have learned that urban renewal is best done by means other than bullets and artillery. So if you blindly trust your government then you have in your heart and mind defeated Democracy itself! To faithfully serve Democracy you must distrust and know or discover the reasons to do so. Also to be open to to the voices of others who would give you just reasons. These are often found in their Satire & Parody of social / government events. So listen to their pain before it becomes yours or your families. The use of humour is commonly used when there is reason to fear that direct criticism will not be respected as not just a right but a responsibility of a nations citizens to keep their government Democratic & Liberty strong - in other words, honest. So to be a proper citizen in a Democracy you must distrust your government and what better way than to make fun of its foolishness, follies and those egotistic mimics who call themselves worthy leaders.
At this point it is important to note that in Mississauga, in the Region of Peel, to write a poem that mocks a female elected politician is now a criminal offence! Yes - that is right, we live in fear that Peel police will arrest those who question the Mayor - Hazel McCallion's coven. More about that here. In one case Antonio Batista is a 75 year old man who dared to write and distributed a satirical poem that was critical of a local politician - Mississauga City Councillor Pat Saito. The Peel Persecutor or Crown was so heartless that it not only pressed ahead with this case regardless that it has taken our justice system into ill repute (or making a mockery of our Courts - they can do it but we can't?), but had the gall to state it wants a guilty verdict because the Crown states it wants that "We have to send a message to the public." and Clayton Ruby (his very costly lawyer), rightfully took exception to that argument, saying it implied that a conviction should be registered as a deterrent to others when it is not necessarily justified in this case. "We don't use the criminal law in this way," and "The government must not silence its critics by force." On that note, check out The Town Hall Test to see if you think you live in a Democracy.
I have gained a copy of the FACTUM by Clayton Ruby in the defence of Antonio Batista. In it are a number of Canadian legal cases that note our right to use satire and parody to mock and ridicule our politicians and government. So here are the rights we have that the Peel police and Peel Crown don't care to know about as it gets in the way of Protecting & Serving politicians and government. The following is quoted from or reworded from Clayton Ruby’s Factum in the matter of R. vs. Antonio Batista - May 2007 - which is very similar to the matter I am involved in and to others occurring in Ontario these days as politicians increasingly turn to security forces to solve their political problems.
“This is a very significant prosecution because of the implications for the values underlying the fight to freedom of expression, which has historically been considered one of the most important values of a free and democratic society, and which is now constitutionally entrenched in s. 2(b) of the Charter. As the Supreme Court said in R. v. Sharpe:”
"Among the most fundamental rights possessed by Canadians is freedom of expression. It makes possible our liberty, our creativity and our democracy. It does this by protecting not only “good” and popular expression, but also unpopular or even offensive expression. The right to freedom of expression rests on the conviction that the best route to truth, individual flourishing and peaceful coexistence in a heterogeneous society in which people hold divergent and conflicting beliefs lies in the free flow of ideas and images. If we do not like an idea or an image, we are free to argue against it or simply turn away. But, absent some constitutionally adequate justification, we cannot forbid a person from expressing it."
R. v. Sharpe (2001), 150 C.C.C. (3d) 321 (S.C.C.) at para, 21.
“The Supreme Court has set out the core values that underline s. 2(b) of the Charter in a number of cases, for example in R. v. Keegstra adopted the reasoning from the earlier lrwin Toy:”
"Moreover, the court has attempted to articulate more precisely some of the convictions fueling the freedom of expression, these being summarized in Irwin Toy (at p. 612) as follows: (1) seeking and attaining truth is an inherently good activity; (2) participation in social and political decision. making is to be fostered and encouraged, and (3) diversity in forms of individual self-fulfillment and human flourishing ought to be cultivated in a tolerant and welcoming environment for the sake of both those who convey a meaning and those to whom meaning is conveyed."
“The Court in Keegstra went on to stress the particular importance of freedom of speech with respect to the political process:”
"The connection between freedom of expression and the political process is perhaps the linchpin of the s. 2(b) guarantee, and the nature of this connection is largely derived from the Canadian commitment to democracy, Freedom of expression is a crucial aspect of the democratic commitment not merely because it permits the best policies to be chosen from among a wide array of proffered options, but additionally because it helps to ensure that participation in the political process is open to all persons. Such open participation must involve to a substantial degree the notion that all persons are equally deserving of respect and dignity. The state therefore cannot act to hinder or condemn a political view without to some extent harming the openness of Canadian democracy and its associated tenet of equality for all ."
R. v. Keegstra (1990), 61 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.) at 22-23 and 49-50.
"Although Mr. Batista does not require a constitutional remedy in this case, the importance of freedom of expression, and particularly of political expression must inform the analysis of the elements of the two offences with which Mr. Batista is charged. The very fact that he is being prosecuted for publicly criticizing a politician is troubling. None of this is meant to suggest that people can utter serious threats of death against their representatives with impunity. But, as set out below, there is simply no way that the poem in question would be viewed as a serious threat by a reasonable member of society, nor did Mr. Batista intend it to be taken as such. He was simply exercising his right to express (with whatever degree of sophistication he possesses) his dissatisfaction with his political representative, with an eye to the next election."
"Second, there is the nature of the relationship between Mr. Batista and Ms. Satio. Mr. Batista is a citizen and Ms. Saito is his elected representative. There can be no doubt that Mr. Batista has the right to express his frustrations with his political representative in a public forum. This has been recognized as a fundamental democratic right by our courts in a slightly different context: whether a government entity can sue a citizen for defamation. For example, Justice Corbett points out that:"
"The reason for the prohibition of defamation suits by government 1 lies not with the use of taxes, or with some abstruse theory about the indivisibility of the stale and the people who make up the state. Rather it lies in the nature of democracy itself. Governments are accountable to the people through the ballot box, and not to judges or juries in courts of law. When a government is criticized, its recourse is in the public domain, not the courts. The government may not imprison, or fine, or sue, those who criticize it. The government may respond, This is fundamental. Litigation is a form of force, and the government must not silence its critics by force."
"Section 2(b) of the Charter guarantees freedom of expression. Statements made about public affairs generally, and about government in particular, lie at the very core of this democratic value."
Halton Hills (town) v. Kerouac, [2006] O. J. No. 1473 (Sup. Ct.) at paras. 58-59.
1 This is to be distinguished from a government official's individual right to sue for defamation. There is nothing to stop a public official from suing for defamation where his or her personal reputation has been damaged.
“Justice Pedlar came to the same conclusion in Montague (Township) v. Page, saying:”
"In a free and democratic society, every citizen must be guaranteed the right to freedom of expression about issues relating to government as an absolute privilege, without threat of a civil action for defamation being initiated against them by that government. It is the very essence of a democracy to engage many voices in the process, not just those who are positive and supportive. By its very nature, the democratic process is complex, cumbersome, difficult, messy and at times frustrating, but always worthwhile, with a broad based participation absolutely essential. A democracy cannot exist without freedom of expression, within the law, permeating all of its institutions."
Montague (township) v. Page. [2006] O. J. No. 331 (Sup. Ct.) at para. 29.
“The use of the criminal law is an even more coercive state technique for silencing criticism than a civil suit. None of this is to suggest that people can seriously threaten political figures with death with impunity. But the importance of freedom of speech to a vibrant democracy is a very significant part of the context of this case and must be considered by this Court in assessing both whether this poem is a threat in an objective sense, and Mr. Batista's subjective intent. The history of Mr. Batista's communications with Ms. Saito are that of an engaged participant in his local democracy turning to his elected representative to ask for assistance with various problems and concerns - the rain water pouring on people's heads, the developers clogging the neighbourhood sewers, the lack of a concrete sidewalk at a local bus stop, and finally his property taxes. Though in some cases his specific concerns turned out not to be something that Ms. Saito could assist him with, there is no doubt that they were an properly brought to her attention. In fact, her staff worked very diligently to provide responses to Mr. Batista."
Dr. Hazel
stands ready to examine your vital signs
{at your own risk!}
Funny pictures of Hazel McCallion & I.
If she is going to put out life size cut-outs of herself, then she can expect people to have some
fun with them.
& 
Remember she comes from the generation where leaches were the cure for most anything.
Oh the HORROR!
The TRUTH is reveled about Hazel McCallion's long life - her many ANTI-DEATH treatments in China.
On a recent trip to China Hazel is photographed SUCKING the life from Chinese political dissents and prisoners in order to keep her iron grip on power in Mississauga - at any cost!
Click here if you can stand the sight of such evil.
Hazel McCallion
Political Cartoons
&
Other interesting Images
Oh Hazel, don't stick your mike there!
Like most politicians Hazel McCallion is in love with the sound of her own voice.
So it is no surprise to see her carrying a microphone as she struts around
City of Mississauga Council chambers.
But in this scene, (a side that most people don't often see), her worship the
Mayor appears ready to share with us any utterance she may deliver - how kind of her.
Its Political Pron in Mississauga Council!
A video political cartoon for your enjoyment.
After the Mayor's special Enersource meeting, the BIG players in the Enersource deal,
Hazel McCallion & Michael Nobrega,
met and kissed before a video camera - then the video-shop fun begins.
Looking for a few good women with penis envy
to proudly strut around while wearing a black uniform,
like a bully with the power to break the law at will & little fear of accountability,
showing off their BIG shiny steel phallus symbol.