In the United States, Medicare costs (along with the cost of health care services generally) continue to rise to unsustainable levels. As patient satisfaction levels decline, many Americans have been led to call for a Canadian-style ‘universal’ health care system. Meanwhile in Canada, and unknown to most Americans, health care waiting lists continue to grow, as more and more Canadians find themselves unable to get the basic care they need.
While each country boasts excellent health care services, broad accessibility to these services has become another matter entirely. Common to both countries are various prohibitions of the provision of medical services on a truly free market, which guarantees cost escalation. As more people find it difficult to afford their basic health care needs, politicians have seized upon the problem they caused by offering them a means to access those services without incurring a direct personal cost – socialized health care.
In the perpetual controversy over socialized health care, confusion reigns supreme, partially due to the varying testimonials of patients within a given system. Some are quite happy with the medical services they receive, while most appear less so. Another reason has to do with the fact that at any given point in time, only a minority of people find themselves forced to experience their health care systems directly, while the vast majority has no direct knowledge of the crisis looming at their doorsteps. Continue reading »
“Dangerous” – Paul Joseph Watson, Milo, Laura Loomer, and Alex Jones (again) are some of the latest victims of the big tech purge of “far-right” voices. Facebook and its sister site Instagram deleted their accounts in a coordinated hit, ironically on the eve of Press Freedom Day. What were they guilty of? Of being “dangerous.”
Voices that do not adhere to the current orthodoxy are increasingly being silenced. Big tech companies are clinging to the blurred lines between platform and publisher in order to have their cake and eat it too.
Join Danielle and Robert as they discuss the ramifications of the current state of internet censorship.
Early in his administration, U.S. president Donald Trump proposed that each new regulation created by law should be matched by the elimination of two previously existing regulations. While this represents a positive move in the right direction, it barely addresses the tip of the iceberg with regard to all the unnecessary and counterproductive regulations that need to be eliminated.
No matter how well intentioned a given law may be, the regulations created to administer that law more frequently than not turn into the proverbial ‘devil in the details,’ reaching a point where the consequences of the regulation are often worse than the problem originally thought solved.
Even when regulations reach a point where their consequences are contrary to the intended purpose of the original law on which they were based, there is little recourse available to those harmed by the regulation, since no one can be held effectively accountable. One cannot reason or argue with administrators or bureaucrats when, ironically, they merely cite legislation as their justification for doing almost anything that they interpret as falling within the purview of their authority.
Under the principle of the ‘Rule of Law,’ politicians and citizen representatives can be held accountable for the consequences. Under ‘Rule by Regulation,’ there is little such accountability.Continue reading »
University of Chicago history professor, Rachel Fulton Brown has been criticized and even harassed for a blog post she published on June 5, 2015 titled “Three Cheers for White Men.” (https://tinyurl.com/yyu6a4sq)
Her post explained that “white men,” the racist and inflammatory term used by Leftists to denote — in a derogatory way — Western culture, were responsible for such things as chivalry, women’s rights, and free speech.
We spoke with Professor Brown at a meeting of the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship at Western University in London, Ontario on May 4th, 2019.
All lawyers and paralegals play a vital role in Accelerating Culture Shift, one of 5 strategies adopted by the Law Society to address the barriers faced by racialized licensees.
As part of this strategy you are required to create and abide by an individual Statement of Principles that acknowledges your obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally, and in your behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public.
This was the direction from the Law Society of Ontario to its membership in 2017. The obvious political ideology at play here offended many Ontario lawyers and some of them banded together to create “StopSOP” (Stop the Statement of Principles).
In April 2019 they fielded a slate of 22 Bencher candidates who stood for election to the society’s Convocation with the entire slate being elected.
Leading the revolt against compelled speech and in favour of non-partisan lawyers were Law Society members Lisa Bildy, StopSOP Campaign Chair and Bruce Pardy professor of law at Queen’s University.
Robert Vaughan interviewed Bruce and Lisa while attending the Society For Academic Freedom and Scholarship’s AGM at Western University in London, Ontario.