Canadian law milked for personal gain.

The Courier Mail reports that court has awarded $US12,000 ($A11,230) to a couple who sued after they were not served in French aboard Air Canada flights on two trips to the United States.

Feel good laws are oppressive, especially when they step into normal human interaction and commercial activities. When those laws allow businesses to be sued they create the monster of the professional litigant and provide fertile ground for this activity.

There are areas where companies may find an advantage in providing extra services, which may attract customers. They should however be free to not do so if the service is unnecessary, or unviable. It is crazy in any case to award anything to a litigant who is bilingual for not being awarded service in the other of those languages:

Michel Thibodeau and his partner, Lynda, sued Air Canada for $US500,000 ($A468,000) in punitive damages for not complying with a Canadian law requiring the airline to provide services in both of Canada's official languages - French and English - on flights where routinely at least five per cent of the passengers are Francophone.

A Canadian court ruled in favor of the couple this week and ordered Air Canada to pay the couple $US12,000 and apologize. …

According to the Toronto Sun newspaper, Thibodeau is a fluently bilingual federal government employee.

"Linguistic zealots like Thibodeau do not help unify the cultural divide, but instead exacerbate the chasm,'' wrote Peter Worthington, a columnist for the newspaper.

Other media offered similar comments.

The National Post's Barbara Kay called Thibodeau "equivalent of the compulsive coupon clipper'', saying that "instead of haunting supermarkets, he haunts bus companies and airlines, forever on the lookout for an abrogation of his right to hear the station stop, the weather, the time and the altitude in French.''

Greens want inquiry into media.

Cartoon: By Zeg.

Greens leader, Bob Brown has called for the government to hold an inquiry into the media and the activities of Murdock’s News Ltd after the British, News of the World hacking scandal. Bob tends to be federal parliament’s Inquiry Caller in Chief. Mention a subject, and Bob will find a reason for a parliamentary inquiry to be held into it.

Brown isn’t worried about the fact that there are no allegations of impropriety by the companies Australian operations. This is no surprise as just over two years ago he was calling for tougher gun laws here because of a couple of shootings in the US and Germany. There is no explanation of why he felt that if we were allowed to have guns, we would immediately catch a plane and commit mass murders in Atlanta, and Hamburg.

Now that the Greens have the power to dictate the agenda of the government they have come under some fairly thorough scrutiny, and aspects of their policies that have previously had a pass are now seeing the light of day. After criticism of his party Bob now believes we need to lift out of the gutter some of the stuff that's appearing as opinion or news commentary in Australia.

Independent member for Lyne, Rob Oakeshott was on TV last night supporting Brown in this. Rob has been complaining for a while about what he sees as News Limited targeting him. It has been noticed for some time, that in News Ltd publications he tends to come across as a complete imbecile, while in the hands of the more respectable media like the ABC and Fairfax he only appears to be a blithering idiot, or fatuous twit.

Gillard says that she is open to the idea of a review. It is reasonable to expect that anything that will distract the public from the abysmal record of her government will be welcome, especially if it can point to a new villain to be hated.

Of particular interest is that while the heat over here seems to be on Murdock and News, the Age, a Fairfax newspaper has been having a field day over the last week with daily headlines on the issue. The Age is in fact the only paper in this country with any current hacking allegations against it. It is understood that the AFP is considering whether to launch a formal investigation into The Age's conduct, after receiving a complaint from the Victorian branch of the Labor Party:

(THE editor-in-chief of The Age, Paul) Ramadge last night defended his paper's use of the ALP database, which catalogues personal details of all voters registered on the electoral roll. In some cases, it includes assessments of political leanings and correspondence they have had with the party. The Age accessed the database from its own computer terminals using an unauthorized password provided by an undisclosed source.

"This story came through entirely appropriate journalistic methods," Ramadge said.

"Entry to the ALP database came via a whistleblower who raised concerns about private information held on it. "This whistleblower had authorized access to this material and we reported in the public interest."

Gillard tries the emotion thing.

Cartoon: By Nicholson.

Sometime this morning Gillard’s speechwriter handed her several pages of her speech to the National Press Club with the words, “You had better read this Jules, you’re saying it later.”

Gillard: “OK, what sort of speech is it?”

Aide: “It’s full of raw emotion over how misunderstood you are.”

Gillard: “Should I get drunk?”

Aide: “No, not tired and emotional, just upset at the way the public call you a liar over the bullshit story you told them about not having a carbon tax”

This is in fact Gillard’s last line of defense. She has tried the spin and semantic tricks to no avail, so she is having to appeal to the hurt feelings reflex, albeit with the usual semantic twists and turns we have come to expect. She says she couldn't “unsay” what she said when she declared “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.” Apparently that is because a carbon tax “was not what I had in my mind as the future for our country.”

This is where we have to call “bullshit.” The “no carbon tax” statement was clearly designed to give the impression that an unpopular and electorally disastrous imposition on carbon emissions was off the agenda for at least three years. Of course, being a government decision it is described as a reform. She said putting a price on carbon was her government's equivalent to the floating of the dollar - a reform that would transform the country.

That ‘transformation’ is what we are worried about. But hey, the poor misunderstood Julia starts:

“It doesn't come easy to me to expose my feelings as I make these decisions,” Ms Gillard said, as her voice wavered. “I was the shy girl who studied and worked hard, and it took time and effort but I got from Unley High to the law and as far as here, where I am today.

“I've brought a sense of personal reserve to this, the most public of professions. And the rigours of politics have reinforced my innate style of holding a fair bit back in order to hang pretty tough.” Ms Gillard said she had tried to allow her decisions to speak for herself, and leave the results to speak for themselves. But she realised she had to open up and explain herself better.
The public outpouring follows almost daily attacks on the Prime Minister over her broken no-carbon tax promise.

She said she'd made the pledge with a clear view of what she meant. But she faced a difficult decision following the election, given the result and the reality of minority government. “I had in my mind pricing carbon and reaching an emissions trading scheme,” she said. “I could have said, in this parliament, `I'll hold to those words'.

“And the absolute logical consequence of me doing that would have been to say, `We'll put carbon pricing into the too-hard basket'.

Noticeable in tonight’s lineup was Paul Keating, the man who gave us the L-A-W law tax cuts, (well he didn’t actually give them to us, but gave us a pre-election bullshit story about L-A-W tax cuts.) Paul waxed lyrical about Julia and how Australia had industries equivalent to the early stages of the industrial revolution and how Jules was going to change all that.

Australia has been consistently on the cutting edge of the best of modern technology for many years. This statement is a load of condescending rot, and an insult to Australian industry. I guess Paul has not gotten over his idea that we are a mob of knuckle dragging clowns that are too unsophisticated to recognize the truth in deceit.

Michigan family prosecuted over vegetable garden.

This story was first broken on the web by Radley Balco in his “The Agitator" blog. Now a video has come out on the subject.

The nanny state appears to be on steroids in Michigan. In Oak Park a family is being prosecuted over having a vegetable garden in their front yard:

Their front yard was torn up after replacing a sewer line, so instead of replacing the dirt with grass, one Oak Park woman put in a vegetable garden and now the city is seeing green.

The list goes on: fresh basil, cabbage, carrots, tomatoes, cumbers and more all filling five large planter boxes that fill the Bass family’s front yard.

Julie Bass says, “We thought we’re minding our own business, doing something not ostentatious and certainly not obnoxious or nothing that is a blight on the neighborhood, so we didn’t think people would care very much.”

But some cared very much and called the city. The city then sent out code enforcement.

“They warned us at first that we had to move the vegetables from the front, that no vegetables were allowed in the front yard. We didn’t move them because we didn’t think we were doing anything wrong, even according to city code we didn’t think we were doing anything wrong. So they ticketed us and charged me with a misdemeanor,” Bass said . . .

City code says that all unpaved portions of the site shall be planted with grass or ground cover or shrubbery or other suitable live plant material. Tomatoes, peppers and cucumbers are what Basses see as suitable.

However, Oak Park’s Planning and Technology Director Kevin Rulkowski says the city disagrees. He says, “If you look at the dictionary, suitable means common. You can look all throughout the city and you’ll never find another vegetable garden that consumes the entire front yard.”

Over here in Australia local authorities are moving heavily into nannying, some tend to blame state government regulations for doing do. It is apparent though, that these bodies do not seem to understand that there is a dividing line where residents actions are none of their business.

Carbon Sunday, 10th July 2011 the start of the real carbon war in Australia.

Cartoon: By Zeg.

By Viv Forbes, Chairman,

The Carbon Sense Coalition.

The Green-Labour coalition has burnt the boats – they have left no room for retreat and we face total carbon war from now on.

Carbon Sunday has jolted Australians into the reality that Bob Brown and his Gaggle of Green Geese, supported by the Three Green Puppets (Windsor, Oakshott and Wilke), now control Australia's future.

There is no room for any of our basic industries in their Grand Green Goal for Australia. They hate mining, farming, forestry, fishing and the service and heavy industries associated with them. Since the days of the first fleet, these industries have given jobs and security to all Australians. Such security was not earned by singing hymns to Gaia and sitting in the shade.

We few skeptics in the Carbon Sense Coalition have fought the carbon battle for over four years now. A few others such as Ray Evans and a couple of great journalists have battled for longer.

For 3 years no one wanted to know us, but now the seeds planted so persistently are starting to bear fruit. We have not moved at all in our positions but the mountain of public opinion has moved massively towards us. Many thinking and concerned people are now actively in the fight.

The Australian public is now aroused and hostile to the carbon tax. The general media has noticed that we exist and even the ABC has turned its baleful eye upon us.

The main goal of the Greens is to get this tax onto the books, no matter how tattered and ineffective it looks after the storm. Once there, it can be extended and increased.

Our goal is to prevent it getting onto the books IN ANY FORM and making sure all players in the game know that irresistible forces will be working to remove and repeal all trace of this ill considered legislation that manages to become law (that includes all the climate control stuff already on the books).

We now must take the fight to the boardrooms and workplaces of Australia. Every director who spends shareholder funds on the basis that all the climate paraphernalia of taxes, subsidies, exemptions, permits and mandates will continue must be warned and challenged to spell out those risks to investors.

Business and trade union leaders must be challenged by their shareholders, employees, members and customers to demonstrate the soundness of their actions.

So please help us to keep up the fight – spread the word, attend the protest rallies, harass your local politicians and candidates, write to the media, vote "No Carbon Tax" in every poll and support the organisations and parties you believe are opposing this baseless war on carbon and on Australian industry and jobs.

Carbon Tax Mark 4? A Stealthy Cancer.

Carbon Tax Mark 4 is flimsy but dangerous.

Because of public opposition to a new tax on everything, the tax has been gutted. The PM hopes to buy public support by giving exemptions to almost everyone and offering widespread bribes to voters. As a result, it is now feeble and ineffective and cannot achieve its stated aim.

But the Green-Gillard coalition is desperate and such people cannot be trusted. They will say or promise anything in order to get this new tax introduced. Once on the law books, the exemptions will be whittled away, the tax rate will increase and the tax bribes will disappear. It is a stealthy cancer in the gut of the Australian economy.

The cost of electricity, food, fuel and travel will increase, but few people will recognise the root cause. Politicians will blame "Woolworths, power suppliers and Big Oil" for the pain.

This new stealth tax is the thin edge of the wedge. It will have no effect on the climate, but is a fiscal weapon too dangerous to be left in the hands of green extremists. Leaving Bob Brown loose with the vast powers of a carbon tax is like leaving the grandkids alone in the hayshed with a box of matches.

"Abolish the Stealth Tax" will be the next election slogan.

Bad news for Labor, youth support drops.

Most oppose carbon tax.

Cartoon: By Zeg.

Menzies House has an article, which notes a disturbing trend for the Labor government. Youth support, which is normally a strong area for them, is dropping off, both on the carbon tax and for the party as a whole.

Conventional wisdom says that Labor has a strong following among youth, which tends to dissipate with age to the point where Liberals tend to be seen as old people. As people grow older and more sensible a fair proportion start to realize that the higher cost of big government is actually a drag on their economic success. Most of these become conservatives while a smaller proportion of the more socially tolerant, become libertarian.

The figures mentioned at Menzies House however seem to indicate that this is no longer the case:

Australian Liberal Students’ Federation President John Shipp analyses the latest Newspoll, which shows 18-34 year-olds as the age group most strongly opposed to a tax on carbon dioxide:

Today’s Newspoll indicates that 30 per cent of Australians are in favour of the federal government’s plan to put a price on carbon emissions, with 59 per cent opposed. These are obviously discomforting figures for the Gillard Government.

What should make Labor even more uncomfortable are the age break-downs. Only 26 per cent of Australians aged 18-34 support the Government’s carbon price, while 62 are opposed. In fact, young Australians are more opposed to the carbon tax proposal than any other age bracket.

Those pushing a carbon tax might argue that this is because a significant proportion of Generation Y voters are disappointed that the Government is not going far enough, and that their consistently high primary support for the Greens reflects this outlook.

But look closely at the numbers. According to the latest quarterly Newspoll geographic and demographic breakdowns, since the August 2010 election Labor’s primary support among 18-34 year-olds has dropped 4% from 34 per cent to 30, Greens’ support has fallen 4% from 22 to 18 per cent, and the Coalition’s has risen 4% from 35 to 39 per cent.

The same breakdowns show that Tony Abbott’s net satisfaction rating among 18-34 year olds is better than Gillard’s.

Taking this Newspoll as a snapshot, these assertions are plain wrong. Generation Y is as concerned about cost of living as any other generation, and perhaps more so. If the figures in this Newpoll hold up, the myth about post-materialist Gen Y voter will have been completely dispelled.

Given these figures and those of the latest Newspoll putting Labor support at 27%, the ALP may soon be only supported by aging hippies, public servants, union officials who have not lost their jobs, and ABC presenters. The whole article can be seen here.

Herman Cain on Fair tax.

Economic Vision, Part 3: A fairer tax

By: Herman Cain

Paying taxes is a fact of life, because there are certain things that our federal government must provide as enumerated in the Constitution. But paying taxes does not have to be unfair, burdensome and costly. Our current system of taxation is all three, and it got that way little by little over time since 1913.

The Fair Tax (H.R. 25) is a fairer tax because it is just the opposite. It is fair because the consumer determines their taxes based on their purchase behavior instead of being determined by the government based on one's capacity to produce. Our production is measured in terms of personal income and business profits.

The Fair Tax is a one-time one-point national sales tax on new goods and services. It is not collected on wholesale purchases, but rather, it is collected on retail purchases when the consumer consumes, and not when the consumer or business produces. This is totally consistent with Economic Guiding Principle #1 as described in Cain's Economic Vision Part 1.

The Fair Tax is also fair because everybody pays the same consumption rate of 23 percent. Liberals hate that concept because it does not give them a tool to redistribute the income of others as with the current tax code. The rate is revenue-neutral and replaces all federal income and payroll taxes.

That's right! There will be no more income tax fillings and no more Internal Revenue Service! That would be another day of independence worth celebrating.

As the big government liberals start screaming about how the Fair Tax is unfair to the poor, it actually empowers those with modest incomes through a sales tax pre-bate for basic necessities when coupled with a zero tax on used goods and services. My dad would have achieved his American dreams a lot sooner if we had had the Fair Tax in his lifetime.

It is a burden on every worker and business to have to keep track of nearly every financial transaction made during the year in order to try and comply with the ridiculous tax regulations. Even worse, it costs us collectively about $430 billion dollars a year. That's insane!

In contrast, each state would collect the federal retail sales tax, as about 45 of them do today for their state sales tax, by adding one additional line to the sales receipt and sending those proceeds to the newly created Sales Tax Administration (STA). The STA would be for administrative purposes only, with no authority or mechanism to harass the taxpayers. The states would enforce the collection of sales taxes from retailers as they are already doing.
It's called not reinventing the wheel.

The opponents of replacing the tax code with the Fair Tax will launch their usual distortions and lies against the Fair Tax. The most common ones include that it‚s on top of the federal taxes we already pay. That‚s a lie. Or, that the rate is really 30 percent, which is another lie.

Proposed legislation clearly states that the rate is 23 cents on a dollar of goods purchased. Over time, the taxes embedded in that dollar will go away due to price competition, such that the item costing one dollar will now cost 77 cents. The consumer still pays only 23 cents, which would make the 23 percent tax look like a 30 percent tax, if you divide 77 cents by 23 cents. The liberals call it inclusive versus exclusive rate to confuse people, but they don‚t bother to tell you it‚s the same 23 cents.

Replacing the current tax code with the Fair Tax is Phase Two of my Economic Vision for America, discussed in Parts 1 and 2 in the two previous commentaries. We must take some time to introduce and explain the concept of shifting taxation from income to consumption, and how it is fairer, flatter, simpler and less burdensome and costly than what we are doing today.
As president, I will end the insanity of the current tax code.

It's common sense.