Category: Freedom of Speech

Auto Added by WPeMatico

I tire of tearful apologies

I would like someone who has offended the local gods of female, black or other superiorities to offer no apologies. I would like someone to say: “Piss off you fatuous oversensitive weenies, you harridans, you lesbian muff-divers, you professionally outraged pissants, you mouthpieces of black gangsterism and civilizational decay, die an ugly death.”

The BBC reports that some scientist on the Rosetta project had to give a “tearful apology” for wearing a tasteless shirt emblazoned with naked women.

 

Rosetta scientist

Look at his shirt, then look at his tattoos. Tastelessness is his offence, people, not crimes against women!

To him I would say, put on a shirt and tie and look like a civilized being. Be a man!

We live in world where people are left to starve on mountain tops because they cannot return to their villages, because, if they do, they will face the beheading sword of Islam. We live in world where Africans die of Ebola, where armies of refugees seek to cross the Mediterranean to escape the trap of North Africa. We live in a world where people die in a thousand little wars or by being in their homes when savages invade with weapons and murderous intentions.

I want someone, somewhere, to stop apologizing for these microaggressions, to get really LOUD and become macro-aggressive. To go full Ezra Levant on these people.

For someone, somewhere, to say: “I am not taking this anymore”.

Fat chance of that.

An imaginary conversation about Netflix

News that the Chairman of the CRTC had ordered Netflix to tell him by Monday afternoon how many subscribers it had in Canada, sparked this imagined interchange.

The phone rings at the Chairman’s house. It is today, Saturday morning, September 20th, 2014. The caller ID reads “PCO”.

-Bonjour? Hello?

-<a woman’s voice> Good morning Mr. Blais, it is the Clerk calling. Can you hold while I put him on?

-Certainly {Jean-Pierre Blais straightens his dressing gown and stands up from the breakfast table. His heartbeat accelerates}

-JP! it’s Wayne. Thank you for taking the call. How are you?

-Surprised to get your call Mr. Wouters. To what do I owe the honour?

-JP I won’t beat around the bush. The PM is apoplectic about your move on Friday.

– You mean telling Netflix they owe us a statement of how many subscribers they have in Canada?

-Exactly. The PM is very concerned. You recall the storm that the Commission created when it imposed usage fees on the Internet?

-How could I forget?

-Yeah, well I know that wasn’t under your charmanship but the PM believes that any attempt to regulate the Net will provoke a shit storm of opposition.

-But the Internet is within our jurisdiction.

-Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. The PM is heading into an election in 2015. Do you think he wants the CRTC to be raising cable rates to feed the Canadian television industry? He does not want an immense court case to get in the way of his agenda.

-Mr.Wouters, I am not sure this call is entirely proper. Is this intended as a direction from government the decisions of an independent regulatory tribunal?

-Not at all Mr Chairman. This is a friendly encouragement to lower the heat on this issue. We cannot afford another earthquake like the usage based billing thing.

-I will pretend this conversation never happened.

-Do as you please, JP, but the PM will not back you if you raise this issue again.

-Thank you Mr Wouters.

-Good day, JP.

<click>

The second call goes from the Clerk of Privy Council to the PM.

Wouters <Prime Minister, I just spoke to JP. It is done>

Prime Minister Harper <Did he get the message?>

Wouters < I gave it loud and clear, Prime Minister. He is a clever man. I think he can respond to a clear statement of your concern.>

PM Harper < Will he raise a stink about regulatory independence?>

Wouters <He will pretend it never happened>

PM Harper <Thank you, Mr Wouters. Well done>

Wouters <Your’e welcome, Prime Minister>

PM Harper <Let’s talk Monday. It’s time to revisit dismantling that place>

Wouters < Yes, Prime Minister

<click>

Silly campus speech rules

I cannot say much more than Eugene Volokh does on this subject, but when you read this story about the University of Hawaii, Hilo campus, please notice that the university administrators say that there is a special “free speech zone” where student organizations may hand out pamphlets.

It is between the theater and the new student services building, like a tolerated smoking zone where obnoxious social habits may be freely practiced, before they are finally expunged from the University.

 

Hilo Hawaii

A friend who had lived in Honolulu for three years said that the political culture of Hawaii was a blend of Huey Long Democrat and Imperial Japan. I guess the University there reflects the general conformist and obedient brainlessness. Trouble is, has the brainlessness spread to Hilo from Harvard?

When I hear of oppression, this is what I think of

I was listening to CBC radio, a while back, to young articulate Canadian Indians (aboriginals) talking about how incredibly hurt they had been by aboriginal schools and how angry angry angry they were about their oppressed existence.

Aboriginal schools of a certain era were Edwardian light-security concentration camps for youth, such as the one I went to in the 1950s and 60s at great expense to my parents. You could be beaten by teachers for failing to know rules you had never been taught ( I will kill you, Roger Reynolds, if I ever find you). You were instructed in grammar and maths and expected to know subjects, conjugate irregular french verbs, learn Shakespeare, write clearly, and be imbued with patriotic fervour for the British Empire, the Dominion, and Victorian ideals. The food was bad but we were allowed home.

The Indian residential schools probably taught less French and more Christianity than we were. Nevertheless, I am skeptical that residential schools of the 1920s or 1950s were any tougher than what white people were undergoing in the 1920s and 1950s: regimentation, obedience, education, hierarchy, and a very strong inculcation into the idea that the world did not centre on you. It was not child-centred learning.

For me, words like “racism” connote picking up a machete and massacring your neighbours if they belong to the wrong tribe.  Never hiring a man of proven worth because he is of the wrong tribe, that would count to as real racism. Forget “microaggressions”. I find myself micro-aggressed by people who are badly dressed; by people who whine on public radio, by slovenly thought, by pompous know-betters, by cross-country skiers who complain about trails being used by snow-shoers: name your pet hates; you have them too. A sensitivity to Micro-aggressions are the sign of how nice everything is becoming.

You want to read about real oppression, practised by the experts of a police-state? Read this narrative about growing up in Ceausescu’s Romania as the child of a dissident. (“How the Secret Police Tracked my Childhood”) Then talk to me about residential schools, if you dare.

 

 

Kay debates Drache about suppression of speech on campus

The MacDonald-Laurier Institute held its debate last night at the War Museum on the state of repression of speech on Canadian universities. The contestants were Barbara Kay of the National Post and Daniel Drache, a retired professor of York University. Both debaters had gone to high school with each other in Toronto ages ago.

I need not summarize the arguments: the hyperlinks take you to the main positions.

You have to hand it to Drache: given a weak hand he played as well as he could, essentially saying, yes, there have been negative incidents, but on the whole, the curriculum has never been broader, the kinds of people attending university have never been more diverse, and  the discussion takes place on the Internet anyway.

In short, everyone cool your jets, nothing to look at here, the university is not really the centre of intellectual engagement anyway, and accept the fact that the university has moved on from the 1960s when, during the teach-ins against the VietNam war, free speech was at its apogee.

This was not so much a defence as a capitulation. Says Drache:

In the last decade, a handful of universities such as Concordia, York and Ottawa have revoked invitations of high-profile controversial speakers to appear on campus for reasons of their personal security, including Coulter’s famously aborted talk at the University of Ottawa in 2010. Clearly, universities need to look at their principles and practices and come up with better answers. But these few security-related incidents don’t amount to an existential threat to freedom of speech on campus.

A couple of riots by leftists against conservative speakers is not an existential threat to fee speech.

In the age of the Internet, the voices of dissent and contrarians are everywhere. Free-speech is alive and robust, but it has largely decamped from the university to social media.

So, really, the argument of Barbara Kay is true, there is no free speech in universities, but it does not matter anyway, because the university is irrelevant.

Having surrendered to the position of Barbara Kay, there was nothing left for Drache to do but say “it doesn’t matter”.

Accordingly, if the Drache position is right, why not abolish public subsidies to selected parts of the university?

Suppose,  as a thought experiment, all power were handed to me, the Grand Inquisitor, to decide whether to fund universities at all. Now, suppose further, as a Grand Inquisitor I am the inheritor of a confident tradition of intellectual inquiry founded in faith that the universe is comprehensible, and that knowledge is possible. Just for the sake of convenience let us call this the Aristotelian-Thomistic intellectual inheritance of Europe, which until the mid-20th century animated most of the universities of North America.

What then would I do with the modern university, which proclaims from every lectern in the arts faculty that knowledge is specific to narratives, and that narratives are confined to specific races, classes or sexes, so that universal knowledge or standards are impossible, and, to the extent they are proclaimed to exist, that this is hegemonic male-white-sexist-racist thinking?

I would abolish the arts faculties, of course, and hand over philosophy, history, and the arts to private  academies. Not one drop of public subsidy to the organs of marxist-feminist-nihilist indoctrination. They will never be missed.

A massive reduction of  indoctrinated illiterates would ensue. The university would be decoupled from its principal power: to assign credentials that someone has learned something, when all they have learned is an attitude.

If the university is irrelevant to free speech and free inquiry, why are we subsidizing these metastasizing cancers of political indoctrination? Why, it would take a university president to justify this. I have just the man for the job.

What the other side in this debate really needed was an Allan Rock, former Justice Minister under the Liberals, creator of the gun registry, head of the University of Ottawa, a man who manifestly does not believe in free speech; who, during the Ann Coulter affair a couple of years ago, nailed his colours to the mast of political correctness. (Rock had pre-approved the letter from the vice-President to Ann Coulter, the American controversialist, warning her that she could be subject to Canada’s hate speech laws. I read that letter: it was one of the smarmiest, most-condescending, fatuous pieces of ill-bred rudeness I have ever had the occasion to read.)

From a CBC report on the event:

She was unhappy with a note she had received from the university’s provost, François Houle, prior to her appearance. The letter mentioned the Charter of Rights and Canada’s free speech laws and invited Coulter to “educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada.” Coulter earlier said she took that as a threat to “criminally prosecute” her.

Yes, what we need to defend the modern university is an Allan Rock, one who will be shameless in his defence of the suppression of all forms of conservative thought, and strong in his assertions that society ought to subsidize this ongoing effort with billions of dollars.

He is one among many such university administrators.

 

 

 

Amy Chua does it again

The Chinese-American Yale law professor and her Jewish law professor husband have landed themselves in trouble with the usual suspects. They have written about different cultures and claimed some are more successful than others. The hand-wringers of political correctness merely bemoan them, rather than denounce them. Or maybe not.

The book is found here and here.

Amy Chua and her husband are doing us all a favour. They are broaching topics that urgently need to be discussed: the inequality of outcomes, the relationship of outcomes to family culture, and the legitimacy of making generalizations  different cultures.

Some of you may not believe that rednecks actually exist, for example. This is a true story. A fellow brought up in East Germany believed that, since everything his then mainstream Communist media taught about capitalist society was a lie, there could be no unemployment in capitalist societies. Likewise some of the readers of erudite political blogs like this one may not have actually met a redneck, not just a Canadian talking like one.

Once ages ago I ran into a lawyer from Arkansas. I met him at a conference on telecommunications in the States. He had a fringed buckskin jacket and a large bowie knife. He threatened violence just by his presence in the room. He grew up huntin’, shootin’,  fishin’ like his forbears on rivers in Arkansas. He did not drop his ‘g’s as we say, he and his ancestors had never said “fishing” in their lives. His attitudes towards other races was frankly appalling. He was not just being politically incorrect, provocative or cute; he was the embodiment of Huck Finn’s father. This was an irony-free creature, a relic of the mid-18th century alive and well in the late twentieth century. After a beer with him I felt it advisable to stay away. Mostly he engendered a feeling of incredulity that someone from such swamps ever could have made it through law school. The Scots-Irish tribe is explored in Albion’s Seed and Born Fighting. If you want a less scholarly approach to this largest of American ethnic groups, Google Rednecks.

It is currently okay to denigrate white people, particularly Christian white people, as the source of most of the world’s violence and oppression. In the left-wing paradise of current culture, they are about the only safe group left to attack. They prove the truth of Dalwhinnie’s Second Law, that there is a fixed amount of intolerance in the world, though its targets are periodically redistributed.

Thus, when Amy Chua produces facts about successful groups, she is breaking a large, pervasive tabu in modern society. Regardless of whether her book is true or rubbish, she and her husband are bringing the fight into the academic world, into the Volvo-driving classes, and making them realize that they too, bear all the hallmarks of successful cultures.

 

Big Brother versus Evander Holyfield

I quote from the Guardian. I am not making this up. Evander Holyfield had some remarks about homosexuality on a British TV show, about which the usual suspects were seeking a witch-burning.

Big Brother producers verbally warned the former world heavyweight boxing champion about a conversation he had with fellow contestant Luisa Zissman about the lack of openly gay sports stars, which was broadcast in Sunday night’s highlights programme on Channel 5 from 9pm.

The Apprentice runner-up told Holyfield that she thought it was bad that few people speak out about being gay in the sports industry.

Zissman said: “I think it’s good to be open like that because it’s normal.”

Holyfield replied: “But that ain’t normal.”

Zissman then said: “That’s just the way some people are born.”

The retired boxer argued: “It don’t make no difference. If you’re born and your leg was turned this way, what do you do? You go to a doctor and get it fixed back right.”

Zissman tried to change the subject, saying she thought it was an inappropriate conversation for the house.

Later, the Big Brother production team called Holyfield to the diary room to discipline him and remind him of the show’s rules regarding unacceptable language and behaviour.

Big Brother said: “While Big Brother understands these are the views you hold, they aren’t the views that are held by a large section of society, and expressing these views will be extremely offensive to many people.

“Do you understand why?”

Holyfield said: “Yes I understand why. I thought I was just, I forgot about the thing. I was just telling her my opinion but it’s not like I was going to mention [it] to anybody else. It was just our conversation.”

He has not yet apologised for his remarks.

Big Brother continued: “Big Brother does not tolerate the use of offensive language and must therefore warn you to consider very carefully the effect expressing such views may have and the harm and offence you may cause by repeating these views inside the house.”

Big Brother! They are not even bothering to disguise it.

 

Jennifer Lynch dead

The former head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, launcher of the prosecutions of the politically incorrect and hapless racists dwelling in their parents’ basements, enabler of Richard Warman and his ilk, is dead.

In the long run, we all will be gathered to our Maker, but I have little sympathy for this persecuting bigot, who presented herself as an enlightened force for social peace. Bigotry is always invisible to its bearers when the views expressed coincide exactly with those held by the middle of the herd of Volvo-drivers, bien-pensants and the socially dominant.

Jennifer Lynch ran headlong into the Internet, and lost. The drastically reduced cost of information generation and transmission meant that the light of day, of rational argument, of the common decency and balance of mankind, illuminated the fetid mindset of her employees and their mission to confine speech to what they thought tolerable. In short, the Internet, coupled with the ordinary sense of people, stopped their scheme. She said as much in a speech made in 2010, which alluded to the case of the Canadian Islamic Conference versus Mark Steyn and Macleans:

 

The Canadian Islamic Conference alleged that the online Maclean’s article exposed members of the Muslim community to hatred and contempt pursuant to section 13 – the section of the Canadian Human Rights Act that gives the Commission jurisdiction over complaints about Internet hate messages. The CIC also filed complaints in Ontario and British Columbia.

The issue in this case was whether the expression used in the Steyn excerpt was so extreme as to fall within the narrow definition of hate messages provided by the Supreme Court.

All three jurisdictions dismissed the complaint. The Canadian Human Rights Commission and the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal dismissed it on its merits; the Ontario Human Rights Commission dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.

Even before the three complaints were dismissed, human rights commissions and tribunals experienced a firestorm of protest – by those who felt that even exposing mainstream media organizations to formal complaints is inconsistent with Canada’s commitment to freedom of expression.

As we worked to correct the surprising amount of misinformation that was influencing the debate, we recognized that we were witnessing – and experiencing – the new reality of social media and our increasingly connected world.

Social media has given everyone a voice. We all have equal opportunity to contribute to the exchange of ideas. And through social media, people continue to find new ways to reach out, influence and inspire people….

 

The Commission has seen this first hand. We have spent considerable energy trying to repair our reputation after bloggers – who misrepresented the Commission and the administrative justice system as a whole – were able to influence the tone of the discussion.

Outraged that the Commission even received the complaint, some began describing the Commission and its employees as “thought police,” “fascists,” “neo-nazis,” “totalitarian” and “the politburo.” The Tribunal was described as a “kangaroo court” and a “Star Chamber.”

Here are some examples of how the mainstream media later portrayed the Commission:

  • “Human rights commissions have been set up as a kind of parallel police and legal system, yet without any of the procedural safeguards, rules of evidence, or simple professional expertise of the real thing.” – Andrew Coyne, Maclean’s, April 6, 2009 (online April 2, 2009)
  • “…our human rights commissions have flown under the radar of public attention for too long, ignored by … a judiciary that has inexplicably allowed these pseudo-courts to flourish under their very noses.” – Andrew Potter, Ottawa Citizen, April 12, 2009, page B1.
  • A former Cabinet Minister recently wrote: “His [Ezra Levant] story of the terrible abuse of power at the Canada Human Rights Commission is a bone-chilling horror story. God help you if you get caught in (a human rights commission’s) crosshairs, because if it investigates you, the ordinary rules of justice don’t apply, including the normal legal protections for the accused.” – Monte Solberg, Sun Media, April 14, 2009.

This new reality is also having an influence on public discourse.
And so, today, two years after the complaint was dismissed, the credibility of human rights commissions and tribunals continues to be threatened.

A fundamental misunderstanding of the issue – bolstered by unsubstantiated attacks on the human rights system – continues to guide public opinion and political debate.

However we have been able to stop some of the flow of misinformation and counter it through a strategic approach developed and implemented over the past two years.

 

The thrust of her speech was that the Human Rights Commission system was under unfounded, unjustified attack, and that the Commission had found the right balance between the rights to speech and the equality rights guaranteed in the Charter. These equality rights included, in her opinion, the right not to be subjected to “hate speech” and she and her high-minded human rights commissioners were just the people to determine the boundaries of “hate” and find that just balance between my right to offend and your right not to be offended. Under the terms of the then s.13 of the Human Rights Act, they were obliged to do so.

Such a waste of a life, that might otherwise have done more good than evil.

You cannot caricature this enough

Occasionally, tired of the Islamic jihad, Obama, illegal immigration, declining IQs, rotten cities, financial skullduggery and other symptoms of American decline, and tired even of those who selflessly blog about the dark forces of evil, I turn to the left wing press for humour and refreshment of my satirical impulses.

I swear I did not make this up. Tuesday’s lead article in Salon.com, “I’m attracted to trans women: After years of confusion and shame, I’m ready to stop hiding the truth about my desires — and I’m not alone”

The heteronormative world in which we live had successfully convinced me that being attracted to transgender women meant I had a fetish. I began questioning my sexuality and even my masculinity.  I didn’t even know what to call my sexual orientation.  Finally one day, after hours of searching, I came across two terms that described what I was feeling. Trans-attraction and trans-orientation. Neither one is official or common, but their use is growing due to the increasing demand for a way to categorize people who are attracted to transgender people. When I saw these words, a feeling of relief washed over me: I was not alone. I don’t always describe myself as trans-attracted, but the label helped me feel like I had a place in the queer community and it helps others understand my sexuality.

I long for the day when we will not have to read any such articles, not because people will be prevented from expressing trans-attraction, or a preference for blondes of the opposite sex, but because no one will care. I guess we have a ways to go before kink ceases to be kinky.

Only the children of breeders write history.

 

The obduracy of the leftist project

I started this posting on the inability of the Left to learn anything, but it ended up where it needed to go. Bear with me.

This delicious quote comes from Jason Richwine, formerly of the Heritage Foundation, fired for saying true things about IQ differentials between whites and Hispanics:

“For people who have studied mental ability, what’s truly frustrating is the déjà vu they feel each time a media firestorm [about IQ differentials] like this one erupts. Attempts by experts in the field to defend the embattled messenger inevitably fall on deaf ears. When the firestorm is over, the media’s mindset always resets to a state of comfortable ignorance, ready to be shocked all over again when the next messenger comes along.”

At stake here, incidentally, is not just knowledge for the sake of knowledge, but also how science informs public policy. The U.S. education system, for example, is suffused with mental testing, yet few in the political classes understand cognitive ability research. Angry and repeated condemnations of the science will not help.

What scholars of mental ability know, but have never successfully gotten the media to understand, is that a scientific consensus, based on an extensive and consistent literature, has long been reached on many of the questions that still seem controversial to journalists.

For example, virtually all psychologists believe there is a general mental ability factor(referred to colloquially as “intelligence”) that explains much of an individual’s performance on cognitive tests. IQ tests approximately measure this general factor. Psychologists recognize that a person’s IQ score, which is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors, usually remains stable upon reaching adolescence. And they know that IQ scores are correlated with educational attainment, income, and many other socioeconomic outcomes.

You can read the vilification he has to endure from half-educated leftist twits like Ana Marie Cox of the Guardian here.

Now the question asks itself: why does there exist in the media – which is a stand-in for the leftist project itself – a wholly different attitude towards “consensus” on man-caused climate change (drastic, large and exclusively human-caused), and consensus in the cognitive sciences on IQ measurements (bad science, racist, disputed).

Well obviously it suits the interests of some people to believe that a vastly expanded state control of everything can and should solve the sin of carbon emissions, and that humans are sufficiently plastic (malleable) that vastly expanded state activities can equalize the condition of man regardless of the (non-existent) biologically-based differences in their intelligences.

The leftist project is acutely uncomfortable with the notion that there is a biological basis for any significant aspect of human existence, particularly if these differences reinforce existing hierarchies or the possibility of permanent  inequalities or different outcomes. You know the drill: racist, sexist, classist, phallocentric, Eurocentric, differentist, and so forth.

The second outstanding feature of Richwine’s comments was to note the obduracy of the media position: no amount of factual research can influence their views on IQ (that people are all equal in all respects, and if they are not, it should not be discussed) , and that man is the exclusive cause of climate change, denial of which is heresy.

The wise political campaign that offends these principles has to take a very cautious and clever line to slip past the guardians of political correctness. I recall that during the 1984 presidential campaign, Reagan’s forces launched one of the best political ads ever. It showed a bear shambling on a ridge, backlit by the sky. The bear was only doing what bears do, snuffling the ground for grubs and nibbling on a bush. The bear was obviously a stand-in for the Russian military, which had been built up through the Brezhnev years until over 40% of the USSR’s GDP was being spent on the military. The voice-over in the ad simply asked the question: if there existed a bear, would you not want to be able to defend yourself against it. The last line of the voice-over asked, after a pause: “if there is a bear?”.

Today it seems incredible that a US political campaign would have to soft-peddle the notion that the USSR had built up an enormous military, ultimately bankrupting itself in the process. The politically correct forces of the time, however, had different ideas. Pointing out the obvious size and menace of the USSR was “McCarthyism”, “fear-mongering”, and signs of delusional thinking.

So how would a political campaign ask about how to deal with Islam?

Picture an ad showing throngs of Muslims screaming in streets, shouting anti-US or anti-Christian slogans, burning embassies, preaching hate on televisions, beheading and stoning adulterers, converts, apostates, and blocking streets in European cities with praying men, butts in the air.

The voice-over comes on:

“Imagine there is a religion which believes it is the duty of every one of its adherents to kill, enslave and degrade anyone not belonging to it.

“Imagine there is a religion whose adherents believe in removing the clitorises of young girls to secure their sexual constancy and obedience to their husbands.

“Imagine there is a religion which takes as its divinely-ordained human model a man who married his twelve year old niece, disavowed his adopted nephew to do so, slaughtered thousands of prisoners of war, and who made his lusts the criterion and authoritative guide of all male behaviour for all time?

“Imagine a religion which says its primary texts are not just divinely inspired, but are the dictations of God to man, literally and fully authoritative, even though one fifth of it cannot be logically or grammatically deciphered, even it its original language?”

“Imagine a religion that considers all inquiry, of whatever kind, to be formally forbidden”

“Imagine a religion that believes that if God says two plus two makes five, then there is no human basis for disputing that absurdity, and that to do so would merit death?

“Imagine a religion which says that the match does not light the gasoline, but that all physical events happen directly and without intermediation or operation of physical laws, but by the will of God alone?”

“Imagine if there were  a religion which says that everything that happens in the universe: every molecule jiggling, every event that happen to a human, every bird falling from the sky, happens by the will of God alone?”

“Imagine the effects on scientific education and rational inquiry, when all possible subjects of inquiry: religious, philosophical or scientific, are forbidden.

“Would you not want to defend yourself against this religion? Would you not seek to have it disputed in public places by people in authority?

“If there were such a religion?”

I can see the hate-crime prosecutions now, but I can see the ad very clearly, and so do many of you, dear readers, without the benefit of televisions or computers. It is running every day, just the voice-over is missing. And now you have one.