York University - Marketplace Of Censorship

Yet another student union is considering an outright ban on pro-life groups. A handful of pro-abort activists in the York Federation of Students took advantage of the summer recess to declare fetal rights supporters as "sexists" and to outline their own guidelines for a politically correct abortion debate:

Gilary Massa, vice-president external of the York Federation of Students, said student clubs will be free to discuss abortion in student space, as long as they do it "within a pro-choice realm," and that all clubs will be investigated to ensure compliance.

More >>>

In other words - the only abortion debate they are comfortable with is pro-abort versus extreme pro-abort, "abortion is good" versus "abortion is doubleplus good". But God forbid anyone says that abortion is bad. Massa & Co promise to investigate all clubs to ensure compliance - apparently by sending undercover agents (our future "human rights" commissioners I suppose) to sign up as members and monitor the meetings.

"You have to recognize that a woman has a choice over her own body," Ms. Massa said. "We think that these pro-life, these anti-choice groups, they're sexist in nature.... The way that they speak about women who decide to have abortions is demoralizing. They call them murderers, all of them do.... Is this an issue of free speech? No, this is an issue of women's rights."

If so then why aren't Massa & Co willing to debate it as such? If they believe that pro-lifers are sexists, why don't they invite a few pro-lifers to a debate and tell them so? From what I recall, they actually had a chance to do so a few months ago when Jose Ruba, a speaker for the Canadian Centre For Bio-Ethical Reform was to participate in a debate at the campus.

Why did they chose to cancel the debate back then, rather than giving each side an equal opportunity to express its arguments and let the audience decide who is right? After all, even if they couldn't convince Jose that abortions are ok, they would have a chance to convince the audience not to listen to pro-lifers. Why did they choose to reject that opportunity?

Say whatever you want but to me it looks like Massa & Co just don't believe they could ever win a fetal rights debate, so they try to silence the opponents instead of arguing with them. Hopefully those moves will bring them the very same public humiliation they're trying to avoid by banning pro-life groups from campus.

Lefties Want Us To Be Poor

The blogger from the Conservative riding association for Moncton - Riverview - Dieppe published an excellent article on the carbon tax. Apart from calculating the possible effect of the proposed tax (gasoline at $1.64/litre, electricity prices at more than double the rate currently charged, ballooning grocery prices etc), he gave the readers something to think about:

1. If we shut down every industry, motor vehicle, power plant and all heat generation in Canada, what is the maximum effect we could have on global emissions? (Canada’s portion of global emissions - 2%)
2. If we achieved all of our Kyoto targets, how much would we reduce global emissions? (Canada’s Kyoto target reductions - 0.64% or 2/3 of one percent of global emissions)
3. Scientists believe GHG’s produce global warming. What exactly are these “greenhouse gases” in our atmosphere? (Water vapor (95%), CO2 (3.6%), other gases (1.4%). Total human-caused GHG’s in the atmosphere: .28% (1/4 of 1%) – Now that’s turning up the heat!)
4. Are there still serious questions about how global warming is being addressed? (Yes)

More >>>

Then how come so many left-wing politicians hold on to this "global warming" myth? If they really cared about the environment - wouldn't it be much easier (and much more efficient) to fight air and water pollution here in Canada? If anything, halting production of the birth control pills would do more to protect the environment than buying a truckload of dubious "carbon credits" on the international market. So why would they push forward a going-nowhere yet extremely expensive scheme like Kyoto?

It pretty much looks like the sole purpose of this global warming hysteria is to make people work more, but end up with less money for themselves - quite similar to the people in Orwellian Oceania. Except that instead of a permanent war with Eurasia or Estasia, designed to keep the people in perpetual poverty, there's a permanent struggle against "global warming" which in fact doesn't happen. No, I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories but there's no other way to explain what exactly the lefties are trying to achieve by taxing us into the third world.

Somehow that's the only explanation that actually makes sense - the lefties want us to be poor. Think about it: If both parents must work overtime to make the ends meet and they have little or no time to spend with their children - there's more demand for the lefties' precious state-run daycares. If fewer families can get a decent house - there's more demand for "affordable housing". If people work all their lives yet end up with no savings and no pension - it's easier to make them vote for a party that promises higher social assistance benefits...

In the Soviet Union, government used to brag about its humanitarian aid policies, telling the people how proud they must be of their country "feeding half of the world". Meanwhile the people had to spend hours in lineups, struggling to buy whatever little food the grocery stores were offering. Nowadays, the lefties want us to be proud of Canada fighting global warming (by reducing 0.64% of the global greenhouse gas emissions), so that we won't be that upset paying double to get to work, to heat our house or to buy basic necessities for our families.

Mild Recession? Fire The HRC Bureaucrats First!

If there's really a "mild recession" - how about firing those 15 guys first?

One thing that surprised me was just how many government bureaucrats are working on my file. I obviously knew a few -- like Shirlene McGovern, my interrogator and fellow YouTube TV star. But then I started counting: there were fourteen people working on my file, plus a pair of mysterious initials!

In alphabetical order, here are "my guys", as I have affectionately come to call them:

1. Gerard Dale
2. Nichole Daugherty
3. Heidi Draper
4. Jennifer Drover
5. Pardeep Gundara
6. Dave Haynes
7. Donna MacKinnon
8. Charlach Mackintosh
9. Shirlene McGovern
10. Michael McQuaid
11. Marie Riddle
12. Kathleen Samuel
13. Tara Tkachuk
14. Wendy Wong
15. “L.B.”

More >>>

Those 15 sure know how to keep themselves busy. I bet their pay is slightly higher than a minimum wage. And I bet their "operating" expenses are even higher. Firing those 15 alone would save Alberta government a few millions. Shut down the star chambers from coast to coast, show the door to all the seat-warming parasites that work there, so the money could be used to reduce the tax burden on our businesses - and this will be the last we hear of a "mild recession".

Senate Reform - 2 Years And Counting

Not much has been achieved in those two years, as the opposition parties keep blocking any attempts to bring democracy and accountability to the Upper Chamber. Both Senate reform bills, which had died on the order paper at prorogation, were reintroduced at the beginning of a new session. None of them has yet seen second reading. If anything, the Senate has just passed its bill S-224 which would enshrine the status-quo by forcing the Prime Minister to fill each vacant seat by appointment within 6 months.

Meanwhile the provinces, tired of waiting for the feds to act, chose to take the matter in their own hands. Saskatchewan and Manitoba are planning to join Alberta in holding Senate elections. BC (which lacks 3 Senators out of 6) doesn't mind following suit, provided the Federal government pays for it. (I wonder if Mr. Flaherty could slip this provision into next year's budget.)

The four Atlantic provinces are still reluctant to the idea, but they may eventually change their mind as more and more Senate seats become vacant. Nova Scotia already has 3 of its Senate seats vacant. By 2010 there will be 4 vacant seats for Nova Scotia, 3 - for New Brunswick, 2 - for Newfoundland and 1 - for PEI. Atlantic Canada will have lost one third of its Senate caucus - unless the provinces follow Alberta's example and start electing their Senators.

Which is what most Canadians want them to do. As the recent Angus-Reid poll shows 60% of Canadians are in favor holding Senate elections and 64% agree that Senate term should be limited to 8 years. The opposition proposals have much lesser support. Only 30% of Canadians are in favor of abolishing the Senate altogether. Another proposal - to have the Senators chosen by a panel of "distinguished Canadians" (e.g. - to allow a handful of self-righteous, anti-white, anti-western, anti-Christian intellectuals to appoint more of their own to the Senate) is supported by 32%.

Hopefully those numbers are enough to convince at least some of the opposition MPs to stop filibustering and let the Senate reform bills pass. As for the bill S-224 - theoretically, it should be declared non-votable by the House committee, as it goes against a piece of legislation introduced by the government. If however S-224 passes then Stephen Harper will have no choice but filling every single vacant seat with Conservatives and wait until enough Liberals retire to give him a Senate majority. (That could happen as early as mid-December of 2009.) The Senate would then pass all the bills necessary to reform the Red Chamber - and then vote for its own dissolution.

Liberals Target Voters By Etnicity

But thanks to a Liberal supporter who still has some conscience left, this transcript of a Liberal campaign manager training course has leaked to the Blogosphere. And, just as one of the commenters said, if the Conservative party included "targeting by ethnicity" in its manual, it would be called racism. But for the Liberals - it's just ethnic outreach.

Still I could imagine that kind of training. First lesson would include general promises - to boost immigration levels, to purge all the white males out of public service jobs, replacing them with ethno-cultural minorities, to legislate ethnic quotas for businesses...

Further lessons would include issues that are specific to certain communities, to ensure that each group gets the right promise - such as appointing judges that would strike down the ban on ceremonial daggers in schools or persuading the provincial governments to keep overlooking all the polygamous unions that have been mushrooming in our major cities...

Yes, those are my assumptions. But there's one thing I can be sure of - none of this "targeting by ethnicity" is going to benefit the ordinary Canadians, those who don't belong to the special interest / designated victim groups. Rather the opposite - all those promises will come at our expense:

“We are supposed to be a party of openness and inclusion, where all Canadians, regardless of race, religion, and background can feel comfortable and welcome.”

LOL, whites, farmers, gun owners, stay at home moms, Orangemen, pro lifers, members of the military, whites, Christians should all feel welcome by LPoC? ha ha ha,….

Males are more likely to be unemployed in Canada than women but Liberals still push hiring quotas, and bans of white males to make us feel included? or when they want to be inclusive are the groups above chopped liver and do not count? Presumably just Post trudeaupian groups are to be included?

(Marginalized Action Dinosaur)

The latter must be a rhetorical question. We all know what kind of "inclusion" the Liberal party of Canada stands for.

Canada Great The Way It Is

Here's a great article by Naomi Lakritz. Naomi makes it clear - Canada is great the way it is and no redecorating is necessary:

Inviting immigrants into Canada and then insisting this country's culture and traditions must be diminished to accommodate them is like inviting people to your house for dinner and repainting the living room because you're afraid the guests won't like the colour scheme. You wouldn't do that. You'd say, "This is my home and this is how I decorated it." Period. That's what Canada — and most recently, Quebec — needs to do.

More >>>

Well said! Except that immigrants aren't really invited into Canada. They're given the opportunity to be admitted to Canada as immigrants. Getting a permanent residence visa takes at least a couple years and costs about $1500 per adult. So it's hard to imagine anyone willing to launch this lengthy and costly process without taking his time to look up Canada in the encyclopedia to find out at least the basic facts about the country he'd like to move into.

And it would be reasonable to assume that if a prospective immigrant chooses to proceed with the application - that also means he chooses to accept Canada "as is". he is welcome to contribute to Canada's cultural mosaic but he can't demand any preferential treatment just because he's different, let alone trying to reshape Canada so it looks more like the country he chose to leave in the first place.

Few Questions On Carbon Tax

From a Toronto Sun article by Lorrie Goldstein:

(1) Explain how a carbon tax will reduce Canada's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Be specific.

(2) Stephane Dion, back when he opposed a carbon tax, said Canada will make "megatonnes of money" by cutting "megatonnes of emissions." Explain how, exactly.

(3) Stephane Dion says a carbon tax will be "revenue neutral." Revenue neutral for whom? For me? If so, will you publicly guarantee me here and now that if I vote Liberal, I will pay no more in total federal taxes than I do today, following the imposition of your "revenue neutral" carbon tax?

(4) How much of this tax will be spent reducing Canada's own GHG emissions and by how much, as opposed to sending money to developing countries like China and India in hopes of reducing their emissions?

(5) Will you use funds from this tax to buy hot air credits from Russia, which has plenty to sell under the Kyoto accord, given that its economy collapsed following the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, while Kyoto's base year just happens to be 1990 — meaning Russia lowered its emissions by suffering a massive recession?

(6) If the answer to (5) is yes, what good does it do Canada to buy hot air from Russia?

More >>>

The only question that's not there is what makes Dion so sure that "global warming" actually happens and that it's man-made. Especially if similar climatic trends occur on other planets.

When it comes to the polls, according to which Canadians support the idea of taxing emissions - as we can see from the very same article, that support plummets when it's time to actually pay the tax. (Except that then it's already too late to protest.) Just as Marginalized Action Dinosaur mentioned in his blog the polls ask the wrong questions.

Sure, many would support carbon tax in principle - assuming that it would only affect large corporations and perhaps those driving SUVs. But try asking if someone is willing to pay ~50% more for gas, hydro and heating oil in return for a minor cut in income taxes - who is going to support that? Who would want much bigger fuel surcharges, levied by the airline and shipping companies to be passed onto his vacation bills, let alone - grocery bills? Finally - how many would support the carbon tax knowing that it will drive their employers out of country, thus costing them their job?

No, that's not mere fear mongering. Here's what the Shire Network News Podcast tells us about New Zealand's experience. Somehow the country that is considered to be all green and environment friendly must buy a $1,000,000,000 worth of carbon credits from Russia - a country whose environmental record is... how to say it... far below the average. As result - the big businesses (and the major employers) move to China. Which may not have all the green space and its environmental record is probably even worse than one of Russia, but it's exempt from Kyoto provisions...

So the onus is on those who promote carbon tax and other eco-scams to prove us in all the smallest details that their scams won't have exactly the same devastating effect on the economy here in Canada.

Mark Mercer: Bad Times For Free Speech

Axing section 13 of the "human rights" act would be only a first step, Mark Mercer suggests in his article. The article, published in the Chronicle Herald (which is itself under the police investigation for merely publishing a cartoon) provides a great overview of section 13, thoroughly explaining how does it abrogate our freedom of speech.

Canadians heard a long time ago, at least as long ago as 1990, that they are not free to speak their minds as they see fit. 1990 was the year the Supreme Court of Canada ruled constitutional Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Section 13 says that it is "a discriminatory practice" to communicate "any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination." It is under s. 13 that a complaint against Maclean's magazine has been filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It's indirectly because of s. 13 that provincial and territorial human rights commissions see fit to consider complaints about what people have said or written or drawn - as in the current complaint against The Chronicle-Herald for publishing an editorial cartoon that offended some readers.

More >>>

Criminal Justice And Common Sense (The Unborn Victims Of Crime Act vs Bill C-543)

Let's say some guy is on his way from WallMart carrying a brand new big screen plasma TV. As he walks to his car, a criminal approaches him and hits him on his arm with a metal rod, breaking the bone. Of course, there's no way the guy can hold a heavy TV set with his arm broken, so he drops the box, and the TV gets smashed. What crimes should the assailant be charged with in this case? Would it be sufficient to charge the guy only with causing bodily harm or should he be charged with destruction of property as well?

Sure the assailant's lawyer would insist that the assailant merely broke the guy's arm, so he shouldn't be held responsible for destroying an expensive TV set. On the other hand - the guy would have never dropped the TV if it hadn't been for the assailant breaking his arm. Therefore - apart from being charged with causing bodily harm the assailant should also be held responsible for destruction of property. That's common sense, isn't it?

So is bill C-484, the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act. Same as breaking someone's arm and destroying someone's TV set are two separate crimes, assaulting a pregnant woman and harming her unborn baby should also be considered as two separate crimes - and criminal charges should be laid accordingly.

Liberal MP Brent St. Denis has tabled Bill C-543, apparently to counter the bill C-484. Bill C-543 would add pregnancy as an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing. But that would merely acknowledge that assaulting a pregnant woman is worse of a crime than assaulting any other woman. Bill C-543 won't make the criminal accountable for the lost motherhood.

So while the bill C-543 is worth supporting (just as any other legislative measure against violent crimes), it doesn't go far enough. The laws as they are make no distinction between the situation when a pregnant woman is assaulted yet no harm is done to her unborn baby and the situation when a pregnant woman is assaulted, when she suffers exactly the same physical injuries and when her unborn baby too gets killed or injured. Thus - the assailant will get similar sentence in both cases. Bill C-543 won't change that. The Unborn Victims Of Crime Act (bill C-484) will.

Bill C-484 can't be used to outlaw abortions. That has been confirmed by independent legal experts. Bill C-484 doesn't grant personhood to the unborn babies. Yet it defines wanted unborn babies as objects worthy of protection. To ensure that every woman has the right to give birth.

P.S. Here's a great video by Suzanne. It's a baby on the video, there's no denying that. And yet not only does the law refuse to recognize Suzanne's unborn daughter as a person - it won't even recognize her as an object worthy of protection. It's time to stop the injustice. Support the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act!

CRTC Wants Bigger Role In The Online Media

As more and more Canadians shift from traditional CRTC-regulated media to the online media sources, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission is looking for the ways to address the new trend.

They claim that "Canadian participation in the new media is falling behind". I wonder how did they figure that out. Did they measure Canadian participation by comparing the number of .ca domain names with the .com-s? Did they go by the IP addresses of each site, checking out where the actual server is located? Or maybe, by saying "Canadian" they only mean government-funded politically-correct Liberal and secular?

Either way, the CRTC believes there's a problem. So they were quick to come up with a report entitled "Perspectives on Canadian Broadcasting in New Media" and they are seeking public input to determine the scope of next year's meetings on which broadcasting in new media will be discussed. According to the CRTC chairman, the intention is not to regulate the new media but to study it and "to propose measures that would support the continued achievement of the Broadcasting Act’s objectives."

Be that as it may, it is hard to imagine that the CRTC would devote such time and money to conduct public consultations unless it believed that there was a regulatory role for it to play with respect to the Internet. It is likely that the CRTC is considering some form of oversight and regulation with respect to Canadian broadcasting content over the Internet in the same manner it oversees and regulates such content vis-à-vis television and radio.

As such, the outcome of the above noted hearings, expected by late 2009, could conceivably limit the access Canadians now enjoy to online broadcasters and Internet-based radio stations. Another outcome may be a levy charged to Internet service providers (ISPs) to pay for the creation of more “Canadian” content online. Such a levy would effectively be another tax on Canadians as ISPs would likely pass the cost of the levy onto individual subscribers in the form of higher Internet subscription bills.

More >>>

Then some ISP might as well come up with an option for the users to opt-out of the levy in exchange for having their connection blocked against visits to YouTube and to other media sources alike. In return the ISPs would offer CRTC-approved levy-free content through their online media channels. (Which already benefit from higher traffic priority.) The next step would be expanding the filter to include "hate sites" and other content deemed inappropriate - with the filtering option changing from "opt-in" to "opt-out". Who can guarantee it's never going to happen?

So here's my feedback on the CRTC proposal: It's time to strip the CRTC of its authority to govern content on media broadcasts. The CRTC should become a mere technical body whose sole responsibility would be managing television and radio frequencies so that CN trainmen don't end up getting some "Crazy Rock FM" on their walkie talkies. And the law-abiding citizens should have the right to decide for themselves what to watch.

Can Multi-Cult Exist Without Excluding The Host Culture?

Apparently it can't. At least that's the conclusion one could draw from the leaked report on the reasonable accommodation of religious minorities in Quebec:

In a draft copy obtained by the Montreal Gazette, the commission reportedly puts the onus squarely on francophone Quebeckers to be more accommodating toward immigrants, while noting that francophones "have a strong feeling of insecurity for the survival of their culture."

The report argues that "discontent" toward religious minorities "seems to us the result of partial information and false perceptions."

More >>>

Some more details on what exactly is proposed, can be found on Life Site News:

MONTREAL, May 22, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Every religion but Christianity should be welcome in public life in Quebec, according to a government report. Crucifixes must be removed from the National Assembly and classrooms and Christian prayers banned from city council meetings but students should be allowed to wear their Islamic hijabs, Jewish kippas, Sikh turbans and even the ceremonial dagger called a kirpan.
...
Judges, Crown prosecutors, police officers, prison guards and the president of the National Assembly should be barred from wearing religious symbols, but other public sector employees and students may be allowed to wear religious signs if they do not hinder their jobs or their safety. Quebec should adopt "basic texts" that define "open secularism" and "typically Quebec-style interculturalism," and the government should produce "a multidenominational calendar" of public religious holidays.

More >>>

There's however one thing that's missing: They forgot the provincial flag. Instead of a white cross and four white fleurs-de-lis on a blue background, the flag should feature a white cross and four white fleurs-de-lis on a white background. Could there be a better way to portray Quebec as 100% accepting and culturally neutral society?

Ever Wondered Why Some Are Against Elected Senate?

Here's how one of the Senate reform opponents reacts to the announcement that Manitoba government is to launch province-wide hearings on Senate elections:

JD Wood from Toronto, Canada writes: The last thing we need is an elected senate. There is a reason senators are chosen for their wisdom, education, and experience -- not their electability. This so called U.S. idea of 'elitism' is absurd... I would RATHER have an 'elitist' in the senate than some dolt who might invite you to a pig roast and beer party. The senate exists to protect the electorate from itself when they make major mistakes (e.g. electing Harper). I do not trust the ignorant masses to tie their shoes nevermind elect senators.

(Source)

So here you have it - as per JD Wood none of us can even be trusted to tie our shoes without some Liberal (anti-Family, anti-West, anti-Christian) activist giving us instructions. Electing Senators? Are you kidding? We should be thankful we're allowed to elect MPs without having to take a Political Correctness test first!

Opponents of the Senate reform praise the status-quo because the Senate is currently dominated by the Liberals. But that won't last long. With 14 seats vacant, with 15 more Senators scheduled for retirement by the end of next year (only 2 of them - Conservatives) and with the Prime Minister having the right to appoint 8 additional ("regional") Senators on top of that, the Conservative party can establish a Senate majority as early as next December...

But who knows - maybe that's the way to go? First of all, it would turn many Liberal elitists like JD Wood into fierce supporters of the term limits and Senate elections (they wouldn't want more Conservatives appointed as the Liberal Senators keep retiring, would they?) And, once the Conservatives have a majority in the Senate, they could easily pass all the Senate reform bills and then vote for a dissolution of an Upper Chamber so that Canada's first general Senate election could be held.

Fewer Abortions Sought In 2005

Overall number of reported surgical abortions falls below 100,000 a year - for the first time since 1992.

Statistics Canada reports a total of 96,815 abortions were performed on Canadian women in 2005, down 3.2 per cent from 100,039 in 2004.

As a result, the induced-abortion rate slipped to 14.1 for every 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 in 2005 from 14.6 in 2004.

The agency reports that abortion rates fell in every age group except among women aged 35 to 39, where it remained the same.

More >>>

After a prolonged search at the Stats Canada website I managed to get the ratio of induced abortions per 100 live births. It went down from 29.7 in 2004 to 28.3 in 2005. That's a 12-year low. So the reason we have less abortions is not because there are fewer pregnancies. The number of abortions is down because there are more women choosing life.

Moving Towards Elected Senate - One Province At A Time

While the Liberal MPs are dragging their feet on the Senate reform bills and while the Liberal Senators are pushing forward with legislation that would compel the Prime Minister to fill Senate vacancies by appointment, the provinces are taking the matter into their own hands.

REGINA -- The Saskatchewan government plans to start electing senators, making it the second Canadian province after Alberta to move to Senate elections.

Justice Minister Don Morgan said the Saskatchewan Party government intends to introduce the legislation during the fall sitting.

More >>>

If the legislation is adopted during the fall sitting - it will be just in time for the upcoming retirement of the Conservative Senator Leonard J. Gustafson. The Senate nominee elected in the subsequent vote will then become the third elected Senator to be summoned to the Red Chamber - after Stan Waters and Bert Brown.

Let this be an example to other provinces, especially to Nova Scotia and BC, that both have 3 vacant seats. So far Prime Minister Stephen Harper has made it clear that he's not going to appoint any more unelected Senators. With 14 Senate seats vacant and with 15 more to become vacant by the end of next year, it's time for the provinces to start electing their Senators. Unless they are comfortable with having much lesser share of seats in the Upper Chamber.

"CadScam" - I Told You It Was All A Big Nonsense

After examining the allegations against Conservative Party officials, the RCMP say that no charges will be laid in the Chuck Cadman affair.

The Mounties said they found no evidence to support the allegations of bribery laid out in a biography of Cadman, who died in 2005.

More >>>

I knew exactly this is what would happen. It doesn't take an RCMP investigator to realize this whole "Cadscam" was all a big nonsense. Taking a closer look at the details was more than enough.

First of all - there's this million dollar life insurance policy that was allegedly offered to Chuck Cadman. No underwriter would ever approve a life insurance policy for a terminally ill man. And there's no way someone could force an insurance company to issue a policy to someone who is uninsurable. Not even the Prime Minister himself, let alone - the Leader of the Opposition. The guy who added that story to Cadman's biography must have had a wild imagination but he knew nothing about how insurance industry works.

That alone is more than enough to doubt the whole story. But it's worth mentioning that despite all his illnesses Mr. Cadman wasn't mute. If there had been a dubious offer made, he would have mentioned it during the question period. But what he kept saying until his very last day was just the opposite - that there was no such an offer ever made. Whom should we trust then? Mr. Cadman himself or some left-leaning journalist speaking in his name?

Now the RCMP has confirmed that there's no evidence of wrongdoing by the Conservatives. Well, that was obvious from day one. Meanwhile the "CadScam" affair is about to backfire. Not yet at those who had launched it, but at those who were supposed to benefit from it. The Liberals, that were quick to accuse the Conservatives of bribery, are still facing the libel suit.

CHRC Agent-Provocateur Under RCMP Investigation

A criminal complaint against the CHRC, filed by Marc Lemire on April 2, 2008, has been reviewed by the Ottawa Police Service, which redirected it to the RCMP. Now the RCMP is going to take closer look at the investigating techniques used by the CHRC agents; particularly - by Dean Steacy, who has been found using someone else's wireless connection to post anonymously on websites, investigated by the CHRC.

Well, it's about time someone starts policing the thought police. The law as it is gives the "human rights" commissions excessive powers. If we allow those powers to be abused - not just those targeted by the freedom-snatching commissions, but all of us will have no rights left.

Carbon Tax? Better Not Risk It!

The price of gasoline in New Brunswick has hit $1.30 a liter. Diesel fuel goes at ~$1.50. That's high enough even for a non-driving fellow like me to notice. Because there's more to it than just the number.

There are fuel surcharges. Not only airlines, but shipping companies too now charge them on top of the posted rates. It's certain that bus fares will go up in a few month time - there's no way the city transit will make ends meet otherwise. Food prices - They just keep climbing as it becomes more and more expensive to ship goods to the stores. And thanks God the winter is finally over, because the price of heating oil too went up 15-20% over the last few months...

Could anyone seriously claim that the situation isn't bad enough as it is; that the fuel prices aren't high enough without carbon taxes? Could anyone be sure that those carbon taxes would actually be absorbed by the businesses, rather than passed along to the consumers? That the "carbon tax" will be truly "revenue-neutral"? Really?

Promising that a new tax will be revenue-neutral has about the same credibility to begin with as a realtor's pledge that your new home is just 15 minutes from downtown or a carmaker's promise that your new SUV will get 20 kilometres a litre in the city and 30 km on the highway. But coming from Dion, the vigorous opponent of carbon taxes, the pledge of revenue neutrality is even less believable than usual.

Also, Brian Mulroney pledged that the GST would be revenue-neutral, and we all know how that song and dance ended.

More >>>

And here's another thing about carbon tax that rarely gets mentioned:

A fundamental component of the debate has been ignored so far though and that is whether a tax on the sixth element of the periodic table is really such a good idea after all. For example, I relayed a report late last year on how an obsessive academic from Australia proposed the sick ideal of putting a carbon tax on each baby born into the world and a yearly tax on children for the first years of their lives. As we have our national government apologizing for the Chinese head tax of almost 100 years ago, calling the practice a shameful blemish from our past, eco-liberals are gearing up to add a tax that doesn’t discriminate on race necessarily but on simply existing. The professor was never quite clear on what would happen if families either refused or could not afford to pay the tax, although he was certainly joyous in announcing how this would effectively womens’ (and mens’) right to chose to have their babies (something liberals often love to do except when they know the choice will result in one less life in the world).

More >>>

The air we breathe out is 5% carbon dioxide. If we can tax the carbon emissions from our cars - who can guarantee that carbon emissions from our bodies will never be taxed?

32,000 Scientists Against Kyoto

According the National Post, that's the number of scientists who are outraged by the Kyoto Protocol's corruption of science.

Like the Heidelberg Appeal, the Oregon petition was blown away. But now it is blowing back. Original signatories to the petition and others, outraged at Kyoto's corruption of science, wrote to the Oregon Institute and its director, Arthur Robinson, asking that the petition be brought back.

"E-mails started coming in every day," he explained. "And they kept coming. " The writers were outraged at the way Al Gore and company were abusing the science to their own ends. "We decided to do the survey again."

Using a subset of the mailing list of American Men and Women of Science, a who's who of Science, Robinson mailed out his solicitations through the postal service, requesting signed petitions of those who agreed that Kyoto was a danger to humanity. The response rate was extraordinary, "much, much higher than anyone expected, much higher than you'd ordinarily expect," he explained. He's processed more than 31,000 at this point, more than 9,000 of them with PhDs, and has another 1,000 or so to go -- most of them are already posted on a Web site at petitionproject.org.

More >>>

The article came just three days after the chief Earth-worshiper Green party leader Elizabeth May blasted the Conservatives for not being preoccupied with "climate change", urging voters to support the separatist Bloc instead.

Earth-worshipers claim that the science has been "settled", that we must "act now to avoid disaster"; anyone who still dares to argue is branded a "denier". Is that the way to win a scientific discussion? Of course not. But earth-worshipers don't care about science. They need all that name calling and fear-mongering to win votes in the next election.

Elizabeth May — A Political Party Leader Or A Treehugger Activist?

Quebec separatism is waning. The Conservative government has been doing a great job reaching out to Quebecers, so the support for sovereignty has fallen by 10 points. But Elizabeth May wouldn't mind reviving it, if that helps voting the Conservatives out of power.

From the Conservative Party website:

OTTAWA – Today Elizabeth May, Stephane Dion’s candidate in Central Nova made the shocking remark that Quebeckers should vote for BQ separatists rather than federalist Conservatives. (Le Devoir, May 14, 2008).

Ms May calls the Conservative government "a menace to the planet" and she urges voters to "think of the planet first" and cross the traditional party lines to combat "climate change". That's her top priority.

So what if the "climate change" has never been scientifically proven? So what if implementing Kyoto with its "carbon trading" scams will cost tens of billions of dollars a year without making the air any cleaner? Ms May has already decided for herself: the Conservatives which introduced the Clean Air Act are bad. The Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc that rewrote the Act, turning it into a go-nowhere carbon-tax bill are good. So she wants them in power.

And if the Bloc manages to pass a bill that would allow Quebec government to declare sovereignty following a simple majority vote in the Legislature - who cares? "It's the planet, stupid!"

(Ontario) Liberal Priorities — Eye Exams Out, Sex Change In

One of the first "accomplishments" of Dalton McGuinty's government was introducing healthcare premiums (from $300 to $900 a year) and de-listing medical services covered by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, among them - eye exams and partially-subsidized chiropractor services. They claimed that those tax hikes and service cuts were necessary to balance the books and to pay for essential services.

That was 4 years ago. Now it looks like the government of Ontario has finally got some extra cash. One may think that once the government is no longer cash strapped, they'd reduce healthcare premiums. Or at the least - that they would re-instate free eye exams and chiropractor allowance, making it a little cheaper for Ontarians to have their vision and posture corrected... Forget it! The extra money goes to those who think they'd be better off if they had their gender "changed".

TORONTO - Ontario Health Minister George Smitherman said Thursday the province plans to reinstate funding for sex-change surgery nearly a decade after the previous Conservative government stopped covering the procedure.
...
"It is the government's intention to move forward with the provision of services on about the same level as they were (when) cancelled some number of years ago," Smitherman said, noting the details of the leaked announcement have yet to be finalized.

(Source)

How about reinstating funding to the services which Mr. Smitherman himself de-listed just 4 years ago, before worrying about funding elective procedures? Smitherman claims that only 8-10 people will qualify each year for the subsidized treatment. Even if those claims are credible - why should the interests of a handful of sick perverts prevail over the needs of millions of ordinary Ontarians who pay more taxes and get less services than 5 years ago? What kind of priorities are those?

The provincial NDP critic is cheering the idea, suggesting that "this will save lives". How can changing one's genitalia actually save lives? The Ontario PC party spokesperson wants to wait for the government announcement first - as if there could be anything positive about using taxpayers' money to fund elective injurious procedures.

There's only one party that is capable of bringing common sense to Ontario's healthcare - the Family Coalition Party. Up until the FCP forms the government - Ontarians will be paying more to sustain the provincial healthcare system, getting less services in return.

Immorality - An Ethos Of "Human Rights" Activists

The ethos of immorality reigns in the human rights commission at least in Ontario.

Their ruling that a code of conduct for behavior cannot be required or held to by an organization is tacit approval of immorality.

I wonder if Ohrc would also order businesses that have a zero drug policy or a no alcohol eight hours before working policy to rescind their rules and take indoctrination training?

It is obvious that a bias bordering on hatred for moral principles - especially if they are by a Christian organization are unacceptable in the minds of so called human rights activists. And make no mistake, every person involved in human rights commission work across Canada are activists. That is their mandate under legislation from government. In reality they are government legislated "rights" police. Except their concept of rights is decided not on rights but on agenda.

More >>>

Christian Horizons launched an appeal against the ruling but meanwhile, as reported by the Life Site News, the organization had to drop its requirement that employees sign their basic morality statement.

Of course the "human rights" activists will be quick to remind me about so called "separation of church and state". But Christian Horizons is a charitable organization, not a government institution. Similar restrictions are common in all faith-based organizations. And it's perceived as common sense that if you work in a Hindu organization or in a Muslim organization, you better show some tolerance, avoid beef or pork or any other food that's not welcome and follow the dress code as required by the organization. So why was the Christian organization singled out?

I think the answer is in the key phrase "separation of church and state". Notice that it says "church", not "religion". Nobody says that our governing elite isn't guided by the religious principles; it's just that Christian values have been replaced by secular fundamentalist dogmas. That's all.

And that explains the inconsistency in relationships between religion and state. Obviously, the secular fundamentalists are there to push forward their own dogmas. Of course, they'll show no mercy to those who reject their social engineering - especially when it comes to Socially Conservative Christians. But they may actively support other religious minorities which are not yet large enough to pose any threat to the secular fundamentalist hegemony (not just yet) and which they regard as allies in their battle against Canada's Christian values.

Carbon Tax: Higher Unemployment, Lower Take Home Pay

Supporters of carbon tax promise that it will be "revenue neutral". Some even go as far as claiming that shifting some of the tax burden from income to carbon would accelerate economic growth. That however is extremely unlikely to happen:

Other jurisdictions' experiences with carbon taxes also raise concerns. In British Columbia, where an allegedly revenue-neutral carbon tax was the centre-piece of this spring's provincial budget, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation estimates it could cost consumers and taxpayers up to $1-billion each year.

Denmark's carbon tax, introduced in the mid-1990s, succeeded in reducing carbon emissions -- but not in the way intended. All the carbon reductions came from shuttered factories and lost manufacturing jobs. While emissions fell 10%, manufacturing employment fell 25%. The reductions came at the expense of workers, not carbon producers.

More >>>

Don't forget higher gas prices, higher food prices (which won't get any lower if crops are turned to ethanol and bio-diesel)... With higher unemployment and less revenues from personal and corporate income taxes - where will the government find the money for the personal tax cut which is supposed to offset the carbon taxes? If anything - employment insurance premiums will go up as there will be more people drawing from the fund...

And another thing: The National Post describes Dion's endorsement of carbon tax as "recent flip-flop". Last spring Dion suggested that carbon tax wasn't a policy good enough for the Liberals to adopt. But wait, it was last spring when the Liberal committee members sided with the NDP and the Block and voted carbon taxes into the Clean Air Act. Did they do that against their leader's will? I doubt it.

That's Why It Isn't Worth Watching The CBC

They only show what they want us to see. For example, they'd be happy to report any market downturn, predicting a nearing recession and using a special "plunge-o-meter" to show us how bad the things are. But when the market recovers - where is their rise-o-meter?

And when it comes to social issues, their silence can sometimes be deafening:

The March for Life 2008 took place in Ottawa on Thursday. 8000 people showed up. Did the mainstream press cover it?
Because of the rampant Christophobia in this country, the politically correct never let me know what is really going on in Canada.
I was unable to go to Ottawa to attend the March. So I hoped to see something about it in the evening news. Okay so it did not make the evening news so I thought I would catch it Friday, or maybe on the weekend?

(Family Matters)

The mainstream media won't show it - well, the bloggers will. Here it goes:

Pass this video along. Download it and embed it in your blog. If we don't speak up for the little ones - who will? Not the CBC, that's for sure.

I Believe Women Should Have The Right To Give Birth

That's the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act in one sentence. The bill is to protect every woman's right to keep her baby if she wishes so. And that's why it's worth supporting.

Right now, the laws give no special protection to women who choose motherhood. If someone uses force against a pregnant woman, harming her unborn baby, he gets charged with assaulting the woman, but he's never held accountable for causing injury or death to a baby which the woman wanted to keep. Under C-484 he'd be charged with both crimes. And that's the way it should be, because:

I believe women should have the right to give birth.

P.S. Thanks to John Pacheco for the promo line.

Publishing A Cartoon Is "Hateful". Supporting Attacks On Canadians Is Not

That's the way things work nowadays. When The Chronicle Herald newspaper publishes a cartoon picturing a radical muslim raising funds for her fellow terrorists - the newspaper ends up under police investigation for alleged "hate crimes". But apparently it's perfectly fine for a wife of an islamic militant (supposedly the prototype of the woman pictured), a Pakistani with a Canadian passport, to post online comments such as "may ahlal crush those Jews", let alone mentioning that she hates Canada in a newspaper interview...

Praising the Khadrs (yet another al-Quaeda family that took advantage of Canada's lax immigration laws), posting hateful messages against Jews, bashing Canada? Oh, come on, that's her freedom of speech; unlike Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn she's is entitled to it. Raising funds for the families of islamic militants? That's a multiculturalism-oriented charity. So don't expect a human rights complaint, let alone a hate crime investigation against Cheryfa MacAulay Jamal and her Pakistani friends with Canadian passports.

Don't expect any hate crime investigation against Naeem Muhammad Khan, a landed immigrant, currently living in Toronto, for whom "Support Our Troops" refers to the Taliban. I bet, when the time comes, he'll submit his citizenship application. He'll answer a few questions such as "Is Canada a tolerant, multicultural country? yes/sure/of course/i dunno", he'll make a symbolic promise (it's not even an oath nowadays) and, in the eyes of our bleeding-heart Liberals, he'll become as Canadian as maple syrup...

Pro-Aborts Are Furious: March For Life Came To Halifax

From Cathy Jensen's e-mail:

Hi All,

I just wanted to let you all know that the Rally for Life in Halifax was quite interesting.... It was definitely different from Fredericton! The protesters were out in full force... complete with the noise makers, bullhorns etc., it was actually kind of powerful to "see" the enemy... they really blocked our way, unplugged the speakers a few times and somehow got into the legislature building to turn off the power source after we had Fr. Cherry "guard" the speakers... The had many people holding up sheets so that we could not be seen... The anger and hatred I felt was unbelievable... Lots of prayers went up for them continuously...

So typical of the pro-aborts. They know they'll never win an honest debate, so they just bully anyone who doesn't accept their dogmas, trying to silence any dissent... Well, they had a little surprise waiting for them:

I met so many wonderful pro-life people... Anita from Silent No More actually got the protesters to stop for a few minutes when she explained who she was... My speech was cut short a bit as it started to rain and there was one more speaker after me... I really felt blessed for having the opportunity to speak and I know the Holy Spirit was guiding us all. I want to thank you all for the prayers, I really felt lifted up and I praise the Lord for the gift of life He has given us!

Blessings,

Cathy

Louise McKeen of the CHP posted plenty of pictures from the rally in his AOL photo album. Despite all the obstruction from the pro-aborts it was a great start for Halifax. Great job everyone!

Did Morgentaler Use Blackmail On Pierre Trudeau?

According to this week's Maclean's and the Life Site News, Morgentaler wrote a letter to then-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in 1973 in which the abortionist disclosed that friends, relatives and lovers of many leading Canadian politicians were using his then-illegal services. His message to the Prime Minister was that all the confidential information (including the correspondence between the abortionist and PM) could be made public if prosecution against him continued.

Morgentaler begins the two-page, typed, single-spaced letter with the salutation, "Dear Pierre," after which he informs the prime minister that, "On August 15 the Montreal police raided my clinic; they also had a search warrant for my home and found the correspondence with you which I have kept confidential according to your expressed wishes."

He continues, "My reason for writing you is to advise you that this correspondence is now in the hands of someone in the Montreal police department ... I do not think there is anything embarrassing to you in it since we mainly discussed changing the laws on abortion, but thought I should advise you of what had occurred in the event this correspondence might be misused by them."
...
"Do you know that in my clinic, I have helped wives, daughters, mistresses and relatives of members of the Federal and Provincial Cabinet, including some relatives of yours?

"Do you know that Dr. Leon Trudeau, a cousin of yours, has been referring cases to me? Do you know that Quebec ministers who officially came out against abortion, have had relatives treated in my clinic and helped there? Do you know that a relative of [Quebec health minister] Claude Castonguay (who refused to recognize my clinic as requested by me) has had an abortion in my clinic just the day before I was raided? If she knew she would be safe there, does he not know that all patients would be? Or does he not want to know?"

More >>>

The fish rots from the head. Morgentaler knew well that morally corrupt politicians would care more about their own dirty secrets than about sanctity of life and fetal rights. And he took full advantage of the situation. I won't be surprised if it turns out that among the judges who voted in 1988 to strike down what was left of Canada's abortion laws, there were those whose friends, relatives or mistresses were frequent users of Morgentaler's abortuary.

Now, a generation later, we're struggling to clean up the mess those morally bankrupt "progressive" politicians left behind.

Life — The First Human Right. National March For Life 2008

Largest Canadian March for Life Ever

OTTAWA, ON, May 8, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A massive crowd of pro-life demonstrators, the majority of whom were youth, gathered on Parliament Hill in Ottawa today to issue a call to legislators and Canadians as a whole to put an end to abortion in Canada. An estimate given by a police officer to Campaign Life Coalition president Jim Hughes was that a record-breaking crowd of 8,000 people participated in this 11th annual March for Life. Several other crowd-counters came up with almost identical numbers, making the 2008 March the largest March in the history of the pro-life event.

(Life Site News)

Ottawa Sun suggests there were only 7000 participants. The actual number, as counted by Campaign Life Coalition president Jim Hughes (who stood with a clicker counting marchers) was 7,800. That's about 800 more than last year's record numbers.

John Pacheco posted the live blog coverage of the March at SoCon Or Bust, along with some of pictures.

Uninvited guest speakers
And here's a report from the March by Deborah Gyapong. Among other things she mentions a handful of militant pro-aborts that came to disrupt the rally. See for yourself how patient and respectful those uninvited guest speakers were to their opponents (especially - to women that had made the "choice" they promote) and how convincing their arguments are:

There were a handful of young fascist anarchist types, chanting "Take your rosaries off our ovaries" and trying to drown out the speakers. Dressed all in black, ugly, pierced tongues and the like, hair dyed black....made me wish I had a crucifix and some holy water... As they were leaving they were chanting something about getting rid of Christians, "not enough abortions." That's hate, folks. Lord have mercy on their souls.

More >>>

A quick blurb in the media. If anything at all.
Was it me not paying attention or did The National completely ignore the March For Life? All we've got is a 5-second blurb in the local news.

An anniversary to remember
The March For Life is usually held on the second Thursday of May to commemorate Canada's day of infamy - May 14, 1969, the day when Trudeau's "omnibus bill" became law. This year the March took place on May 8th - the Victory in Europe Day. Let's take a moment to remember all those who fought on the battlefields, all those who gave their lives to defeat the Nazism. Let them be the inspiration to us all as we fight another murderous ideology which denies the right to life to unborn babies.

New Brunswick March For Life - May 7, 2008

This year our March For Life was one day ahead of the National March in Ottawa. And I can say - we were lucky to have it this year. The flood water was already gone and the weather was just great. There were about 300 of us from all across the province, gathered in front of the New Brunswick Legislature, rallying for the unborn babies' right to life.

The Legislature wasn't in session today, but the representatives from both the Liberal and the Progressive Conservative caucuses were at the gates of the Legislature building.

The theme for this year's March For Life was straightforward - New Brunswick needs babies. It's been already confirmed by many independent experts that the province (as well as the whole Atlantic Canada region) experiences a severe demographic crisis that threatens to reduce the region into a third world status. While the provincial government does have a population growth strategy, it focuses on immigration, rather than on the natural growth.

So our message to the provincial government is to adopt a pro-life strategy. To teach our children the value of human life. To encourage families to have more children. To support Pregnancy Resource Centres. To encourage change of attitude towards families with more than two children...

MLAs representing both political parties expressed their support to the pro-life cause. Each gave a short speech, reaffirming the province's commitment not to give in to the pro-aborts' demands and not to fund abortions on demand (which are performed at the private clinics) with taxpayers' money. Moreover, as it was suggested by the PC MLA Jody Carr, the rules, under which over 1 in 3 abortions on demand qualify as "medically necessary", must be revised. Well, it's about time!

Our opponents insist that abortion is a "choice" - without bothering to specify what kind of "choice" is that. A woman who "chose" abortion told us her story - how there was no one around willing (or able) to tell her what hides behind the fancy word "choice" and how this "choice" left her emotionally devastated. Now she's sharing her experience with others - so that other women don't make the same mistake she did...


As always, our March For Life ended with the prayer at the Mother And Child Welcome Centre. The Morguentaler's abortuary, where hundreds of unborn babies are put to death every year, was just across the fence. And further away (right behind the "clinic") - there was a cemetery... Looks quite symbolic, doesn't it?

---

P.S. As Daily Gleaner reports, there were 6 MLAs present at the rally. Not bad for a day when the Legislature wasn't in session.

Bill C-484 - Time To End The Fear-Mongering

Looks like the more pro-abort fanatics try to oppose the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act, the more it becomes clear that they have no arguments against it. Except repeating their old claims of course.

One of those claims is that bill C-484 could be used to target pregnant women who harm their unborn children. When you suggest them to read the bill and notice the section 7 which specifically excludes legal abortion as well as any act or omission by the mother of the child, their response is that several pregnant women in the US actually got persecuted under what the pro-aborts claim are similar laws.

Are those laws truly similar to the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act? Ken Epp has analyzed the fetal protection laws to which the opponents of C-484 are referring. It turns out that their alarmist claims are without foundation:

...a full analysis comparing the Canadian situation if C-484 is enacted into law with the US situation presents a different picture than that painted in the NAPW article.

The US references made by NAPW and relied upon by ARCC to discredit C-484 are either legislation or a court initiative worded sufficiently differently from C-484 as to not provide the protections noted in the Canadian bill (by not excluding the mother's decision from prosecution) or evidence that the protection of the mother from prosecution clearly stated in legislation successfully prevented prosecution of improperly laid charges.

More >>>

And finally:

The onus is on those who claim that C-484 can be used to "police" and "punish" pregnant women to prove how. Given they are unable to do this, then intellectual honesty and integrity demand that they put an immediate end to their campaign of fear.

If those radical pro-aborts actually have any intellectual honesty and integrity left. Which I doubt.

Support The Canuck Six!

Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

(Dr. Theodore Dalrymple)

Connie & Mark Fournier (Free Dominion)
Ezra Levant (EzraLevant.com)
Jonathan Kay (National Post)
Kate McMillan (Small Dead Animals)
Kathy Shaidle (Five Feet Of Fury)

The six courageous Canadians who spoke up against the Orwellian "human rights" commissions and their agent provocateurs. Six defendants in a law suit filed by one of those anti-free speech bullies, a professional complainer Richard Warman. Support the Canuck Six! Get the taste of freedom!

Reclaiming Free Speech In Canada

David Warren gives a great overview of what happens to freedom of speech in Canada. No, the situation isn't getting any better. Rather the opposite.

In addition to the very ugly cases that have been brought before various so-called “human rights commissions,” to silence such “politically incorrect” Canadian writers as Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, frivolous lawsuits have now been brought against several prominent journalists and bloggers for their efforts in exposing how the human rights commissions work, and for their audacity in mocking ludicrous behaviour by members of the HRC’s “Anti-Hate Teams.”

Barbara Hall, the leftist former mayor of Toronto, who now presides over the Ontario Human Rights Commission, publicly pronounced Maclean’s magazine guilty of spreading anti-Islamic hatred (by publishing Mr Steyn), while declining to review the complaint which the radical Canadian Islamic Congress brought against the magazine. (The case had already been accepted by the federal and B.C. “human rights” commissions.)

So to the HRCs’ existing repertoire of star chamber tactics -- no due process, no standards of evidence, crimes defined and punishments assigned at the commissioners’ whims, etc. -- Ms Hall has now added the obscenity of conviction without a trial or hearing.

More >>>

The article also talks about Warman's recent law suit against bloggers and journalists who had the courage to expose the provocative tactics and dirty tricks that the thought-police goons (including Warman himself) use to incriminate those accused of "hate crimes".

If there is a silver lining in all that, it's that even a Cabinet minister in charge of the multi-cult has finally noticed that something is going wrong in his domain.

CALGARY -- The federal minister in charge of Canada's multiculturalism file cautioned an anti-racism conference Friday against exploiting the power of human rights commissions to silence offensive speech.

Addressing the annual gathering of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation (CRRF) in Calgary, Jason Kenney, a Cabinet member and Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity, labelled "dangerous" the "illiberal tactics" employed by some activists in the name of tolerance.

More >>>

It sure took a while for the government to notice that, but better late than never. I wonder if that's the most we can count on in a minority Parliament or if we can expect them to withdraw federal funds from organizations like "race relations foundation", that view Canada's history as nothing but a "racist past", let alone - to have M-446 placed in the order of precedence and voted on...

Violence And Disruption - Their Only Argument Against "Born Gay Hoax"

It's sure easy for the militant homosexuals to believe that they were "born that way" and that they can't help their actions, rather than actually trying to overcome their sexual dysfunctions and quit the destructive lifestyle. So when Ryan Sorba gave a speech on his book titled "The Born-Gay Hoax" at Smith College in Northampton, MA, a group of perverts could find no other ways to argue their point of view except violent break-in, harassment and disruption.

Shortly into his speech, the protesters tried to drown out Sorba's words with loud chants and clanging of pots and pans. As Sorba strove to continue his lecture, protesters invaded from a back window, flooded the podium, and began noisily dancing and clapping in front the speaker.

A Smith College official told Sorba that he needed to leave, while two police officers and a security guard watched the protesters continue in triumphant chants.

Because protesters remained in the room, Sorba was not able to return to conclude his talk.

More >>>

And that's another question - how come it's the speaker who had to leave the room, not the violent group that broke in? I wonder if the college security would act the same way if it was let's say Fred Phelps and his gang trying to disrupt a "pride" lecture. I bet, if something like that actually happened nowadays and if the college security actually sided with the protesters and escorted the "proud" speaker out of the room - the media all across the US and Canada would be yelling about discrimination in no time.

This however is not the case for a pro-family speaker trying to dispel a powerful myth.

Still Surplus, Not Deficit!

While Ralph Goodale sheds crocodile tears about "how Stephen Harper ruined our national balance sheet", it turns out that the Federal government may actually exceed the $10.2B surplus expected for the 2007/08. As of the end of February, the Federal surplus stood at $12.9B.

The figure does not include $2.5 billion in spending announced by the government that will be accounted for next month, including the $1 billion development trust fund to help communities hit hard by the manufacturing and forestry slump.

Still, that would leave the up-to-date surplus at $10.4 billion, slightly above the $10.2 billion forecast in Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's February budget, with one more month of tax collection and spending to account for.

More >>>

That's despite the GST cut and other small tax breaks that were announced in last fall's fiscal update (with many income tax breaks applied retroactively to all of 2007). So what is Ralph Goodale upset about?

Goodale mentions the "federal financial flexibility of about $100-billion" which was projected over the next 5 years. But whose money was it? Was it some sort of national dividend the feds were expected to receive from the Bank of Canada? Or maybe the Bank of Canada was simply planning to print out that kind of money and grant it to the feds, so they release those funds into circulation? No, that was taxpayers' money. So the Conservatives did the right thing returning it back to taxpayers.

The $100B over five years - I'll leave it on Ralph Goodale's conscience. It would have never been that much; not with the Liberal spending habits. But their last budgets (2003, 2004, 2005) are still remembered. In all those years, the projected revenues were understated in the actual budget, so that the Liberals could play Santa later on, announcing more and more unbudgeted spendings, most of them - to special interest groups and Liberal-voting communities.

Year 2005 would probably be the best example. First they announced a meager $100 increase in personal exemption - that's $16 in annual tax savings. In May the budget was amended to appease the NDP, canceling the tax cuts proposed for 2008 and adding more spendings effective immediately. Finally, in November they came up with a pre-election mini-budget which, among other things, included 1% reduction in lowest income tax rate and a $500 increase in personal exemption...

Could it be that Ralph Goodale simply didn't know back then how much money would there be available in 9 month time? I doubt it. Most likely, Mr Goodale purposely underestimated the revenues so that he could have some extra billions set aside to bribe the NDP and to buy votes in the anticipated early election. So what upsets him now is that this vote buying cushion will no longer be available. Even if the Liberals form the government after the next election - they'll have to raise taxes to fulfill their election promises.

Of course, they'll try to blame it on the Conservatives. When talking about the Conservative budgets, Goodale claims that "their budgets have ballooned by more than $40-billion in just over two years", calling it the biggest spending increase ever. And then he complains that even with all the surplus handy, Harper abolished the court challenges program - one that allowed special interest groups to sue the government at taxpayers expense. So it's not really the spendings that concern Goodale.

By claiming that the government boosted spendings by $40B over 2 years (even though the actual number is ~$27B), he wants us to believe that Stephen Harper's government brought us into deficit and that a GST hike is imminent to balance the books. By mourning the loss of the court challenges program he makes it clear that the extra cash is needed not to balance the books (they are perfectly fine) but to pay for their tax-and-spend election promises.

After all, we've seen that in Ontario. The very first thing the Liberal government did was blaming the Ontario PC on a $2.2B deficit. The Liberals then canceled the proposed tax cuts, abolished tax breaks for independent schools (retroactively, to 2003), rolled back tax cuts for corporations and small businesses, discontinued the RRSP-like home buyer's saving program, delisted eye exams, chiropractor services and many others (but not abortions!), slapped in healthcare premiums... And, after doing all that in just 6-month time (so much for Mr McGuinty's "I won't raise your taxes"), they ended up with... much higher deficit - nearly $6-billion.

If the Liberals ever form a government - expect just that.

Disband Those Unions?

Here's a great essay by Joan Tintor. Joan makes her case against the unions - and her arguments are quite convincing:

Think of the state of our roads, the quality of our education and health care, the cleanliness of our streets. The overall tax burden has grown, but this has hardly been matched by an increase in the quality of government services. Yet the wages and benefits of public sector workers continue to rise. Of course they do: by their very nature, public sector unions tend to drive up the costs and size of government. Union dues – themselves a cost driver – go to employ officials whose full-time work consists of filing grievances, lobbying the government for more workers, coordinating with other unions and supporting sympathetic candidates.

More >>>

To this I may add that union dues not only go to the pockets of overpaid executives and left-wing candidates, but also to various special interest groups, including radical feminists and militant homosexuals. Members who oppose those policies gets ostracized.

Not to mention some of the unions going as far as putting their nose into international affairs and declaring a boycott on Israel for daring to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks. What does that have to do with negotiating just wages and acceptable working conditions - for which the unions were created in the first place?

Even if disbanding the unions would be going too far, what we definitely need is a complete overhaul of Canada's labor laws. First and foremost - there should be a right for people to opt-out of union membership and to create their own alternative unions. Union activity should be restricted to its actual raison d'être which is maintaining fair working conditions for its members, not political activism or promotion of marginal special interest groups at members' expense.

No member should be forced to contribute against his will, directly or indirectly, to any cause or interest he doesn't support. Those unwilling to remain union members, should have the right to direct their union dues to a charitable organization of their choice. It should be unions for the people, not people for the unions.

P.S. This essay was originally posted by Joan about couple years ago. Check out the comments - they are worth reading. And yes, I know that today is "may day" so I posted this on purpose :)