Tuesday, July 31, 2007

How democracy "works"

Pierre Trudeau was voted the worst Canadian in the contest run by The Beaver magazine. Some are upset with the results, but many find the results quite reasonable. Werner Patels mentions some of Trudeau's "accomplishments", like the botched Charter, the multi-cult and the National Energy Program. Suzanne reminds us of Trudeau's role in legalizing abortions. If everything mentioned above is not enough for you - think of Trudeau's fiscal irresponsibility; ballooning program spending and federal government debt increasing 8-fold, from $19B in 1968 to $157B in 1984. So what's there not to hate?

Those who are upset with the results blame... the organizers, for allowing free-for-all online voting.
Fresh on the heels of the Great CBC Facebook Wish List Fiasco, Canadian history magazine The Beaver has once again demonstrated that, when it comes to free-for-all online voting, democracy simply doesn't work.
Yeah, what a fiasco! They were counting on us to vote "progressive", but we voted our conscience. The CBC organized the Wish List contest - people wished to abolish abortion and restore the traditional definition of marriage. When The Beaver magazine asked who was the worst Canadian - not only we said it was Pierre Trudeau, but we also suggested all our friends to do the same...

So, if democracy doesn't work when it comes to free voting, then how does it work? Kady O'Malley gives us no suggestions in his article. But, judging from the way the "progressives" were doing things in the last few decades, it seems like the only way democracy works (for them) is when the decision is made by a leftie judge, praised by the left-leaning media and rubber-stamped by the Liberal government.

Monday, July 30, 2007

Attention: Possible Security Threat.

Be careful when you disclose your real name, birthdate and other personal information on social networking sites like the Facebook.
As Facebook evolves from a university social network into an enterprise tool, VeriSign iDefense security experts are warning that the platform is turning into a prime attack vector for cybercriminals.
I worked for an ISP technical support for several years so I know how it works. Some ISPs allow changing one's password with nothing but a name, phone number and the postal code. With the last two available to anyone with a phone book (the postal code is traced through Canada Post website), don't be surprised when someone gets unrestricted access to your e-mail - which is often quite conveniently stored on the ISP's webmail page.

An expert could achieve much more:
"We pulled down one person's name--in this instance, a female--and everything she put out there," Howard said.

"In 15 minutes of doing Google searches, we were able to collect enough information to steal her identity."
EternaLee warns that birthdate is one of the first things that stores ask for on security questions, suggesting skewing that for security sake. Myself, I think the better way is to simply use a pseudonym or a nickname, rather than an actual last name. Even if it would make it more difficult for a used-to-be classmate to find you on Facebook.

Saturday, July 28, 2007

Guilty, I tell ya!

The CHRC has GOT to be the “Monte Python” of Canadian Bureaucracies...
(Originally posted on "Free Dominion")
“You sent us this dire message that we must respond YESTERDAY...!!!”

“Did not.”

“I have it right here, in my hand...!!!”

“Then comply.”

“...But, it’s ALREADY expired...!!!”

“Then you’re OBVIOUSLY guilty, pay up.”

“For WHAT....???”

“That for which you are guilty, thank you.”

“But the notice doesn’t say what we’ve done....”

“Doesn’t matter NOW, does it...???”

“I demand to know the charges against me..!!!”

“Pretty cheeky for someone who’s been convicted, aren’t we...???”

“Doesn’t ANYONE know what this is about...???”

“Oh, you didn’t ASK me that.”


“All right then, I’ll forward you to the guilty parties desk.....hold, please”

[several minutes later...]

“Guilty Parties Desk....”

“I just TALKED to you....!!!”

“Are you guilty...???”

“I’m JUST trying to find out WHAT I’m charged with...!!!”

“Oh, it’s YOU again.”

“You forwarded me to YOURSELF...????”

“We’re quite BUSY here at CHRC, so we all have to wear several hats.”

“You’re NOT very helpful.”

“Why SHOULD I be....???....You’re GUILTY...!!!”


“It’s in your notice.”

“The notice is EXPIRED...!!!”

“Then you’re GUILTY, so you’ve come to the right desk...how can I help you....???”

“I just TOLD you at the OTHER desk....!!!”

“We’re prohibited from eaves dropping, Ma’am, that would be Invasion of Privacy.”

“.....Aaaaargh.....I got this notice which expired immediately that said I had to reply in full to accusations placed against me..”

“Oh, yes I remember now....that’s why I forwarded you to the Guilty Parties Desk...”

“Look, I just want to find out what I’ve been accused of....!!!!”

“I see....do you have your notice....???”

“Yes, it’s right here in my hands.”

“Good. Could you read me the number...???”

“Yes. It’s number 5560023874-A......”

“Hold please....”

[several minutes later]

“Says here that notice is expired.....you’re guilty.”

“Of WHAT, for God’s sake....???”

“Oh, right......says here HATE SPEECH.”

“That’s RIDICULOUS...!!!”

“Well, if you don’t mind my saying so...you DO seem a bit testy....”

“HATE SPEECH....???....that’s preposterous...what have I DONE...???”

“Madam, with all due respect, YOU are the guilty party....you should know.”

“OK, I’m getting pretty FED UP with this process...can’t you tell me ANYTHING...???”

“Well, we BOTH know you’re guilty...that’s a start...!!!”

“Look, all I know is that I got this expired notice that says I’m guilty....”

“I get LOTS of calls like yours, perhaps you would like to speak to the Expired Notices of Guilt Desk...???”

“What EVER....!!!”

“I’ll forward you, please hold....”

[several VERY long minutes later]

“Expired Notices of Guilt Desk, how may I help you...???”

“You’re the SAME person....!!!”

“Your voice DOES sound familiar, but I’ve got two OTHER lines ringing, please hold.....”

Friday, July 27, 2007

Global Warming - Nothing But Beliefs

Two weeks ago I posted a copy of an e-mail which Michael T. Eckhart, the President of the American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE) sent to Dr. Marlo Lewis. In his e-mail Mr. Eckhart used a few strong expressions referring to his opponent's views and threatened to denounce Dr. Lewis as a liar and charlatan if he produces one more editorial against so called "global warming".

The posting provoked an angry response from one of the blog readers. While I wasn't sure Mr. Eckhart would ever read the response, I allowed it to be posted on my blog. The letter and the comment were however traced by many through Google search, so one of the ACORE executives found it today and posted his own comment, suggesting that the correspondence between Dr. Marlo Lewis and Mike Eckhart should be taken in context. The anonymous poster provided some background information to explain what caused Mr. Eckhart to lose his temper.

Mr. Eckhart starts his summary by saying he believes that global warming is occurring. Well, I believe that such claims make my slippers laugh. If we're dealing with science, let's talk about facts, not beliefs. The facts however contradict Mr. Eckhart's claims.

One of his claims is that if the ice bank on Greenland melts, the seas could rise as much as 20 feet. Let's do some math. Earth's water area is 361,126,400 km2. So, in order for the sea levels to raise by 20 feet (which is 6m 09.6cm), we need 361,126,400km2*0.006096km=2,201,426.5km3 (cubic kilometers) of ice melting. Could there be that much ice on Greenland alone? Even if the ice was covering all of Greenland (2,166,086 km2), the ice cap must have been over a kilometer thick. But since only 81% of Greenland's surface (1,755,637km2) is covered with ice, the ice cap needs to be 1254 meters thick to cause the sea level raise by 6.1 meters if melted.

But what actually happens with the sea levels? Not only there's no sign of them raising, but surprisingly, in most port cities of Canada, the sea levels are down 1cm compared to previous decades' averages. As for Greenland's ice cap that concerns Mr. Eckhart so much:
Just in time for worldwide concerts to draw attention to the planet’s imminent doom at the hands of anthropogenic global warming, a new find in Greenland suggests that much of the hysteria in Al Gore’s schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth” has absolutely no basis in scientific fact.
So there was another global warming on Greenland. And then there was the Little Ice Age that drove the Vikings out. Greenland which apparently used to be green in the Viking days has now 4/5 of its territory covered by glaciers, while Iceland apparently used to have much more ice 1000 years ago than it has now. What kind of SUVs did the Vikings have?

Mr. Eckhart suggests that the main reason why Dr. Lewis argues against man-made global warming is his opposition to big government. Well, maybe Dr. Lewis' statements that the environmentalists falsely use the threat of climate change to gain control of the power of government actually make sense. After all, this whole debate does seem to be more about carbon taxes and international regulatory entities, rather than about actual measures to fight air pollution.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

The Absurd Of Hate

Apparently there's good hate and bad hate.
In the first place, so far no Commie-Commission in Canada has ever actually gone after the real hate mongers. You know, the ones who protest Israel's right to exist, who have threatened to annihilate all Westerners – and have actively participated as enemy combatants against Canadian troops in Afghanistan, only to come back to Canada for "sanctuary" and socialized medicine.

Everybody knows they exist in Canada. The CBC even did a news report on one such "terrorist" family, but never once has a commissioner investigated them; there haven't even been any complaints filed that I know of.

The second point is uniquely ironic. The Commie-Commissions have apparently decided they will defend two groups at the expense of everyone else's constitutional rights. But the grand irony is these two protected groups actually hate each other.

I'm speaking, of course, of homosexuals and Muslims.
Ironically, one of Bill Whatcott's postings for which Free Dominion is being targeted, asked the very same question - why would homosexuals side with Muslims if Muslims who practice Sharia law tend to advocate beheading homosexuals?

Michael Coren asks the same question about the fellow socialits.
We saw this during marches in Toronto and Montreal where left-wingers chanted that they were, "All Hezbollah Now!" The Islamic terror group in question is fascistic, theocratic and vehemently anti-gay and anti-feminist.

It stands, in fact, for almost everything socialism claims to oppose.

There is a similar disconnect with union boycotts of Israel.

While they have little support among union members, they do tell a frightening story.

Small pockets of, shall we say, anti-Zionist zealots manage to pass motions singling out Israel as the great Satan, even though the Jewish state is the single country in the Middle East where workers are allowed to form genuine unions.

As opposed to somewhere like Iran, where earlier this month the leader of the only free union in the country was beaten and abducted by security police.

Calls for a boycott? Don't be silly.
I wonder if Marie-Line Gentes ever considers looking for answers to some of those questions, rather than going after the forums and newspapers that post such "hate-mongering" articles. Meanwhile Michael is getting harassing e-mail messages from his opponents. As always, when the leftists have no arguments, they resort to name calling. That's the kind of hate the leftists are ok with.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

So far they've achieved just the opposite

A week ago, Connie Wilkins was informed about a complaint, filed to the "human rights commission" against the Free Dominion forum. As the owner of the forum, Connie was accused of "contributing to disseminating hate literature". The accuser, one named Marie-Line Gentes, has a personal grudge against one of Free Dominion users, Bill Whatcott. She can't silence Bill himself, so she's trying to shut down the web forum that gives Bill's posting the biggest exposure.

So far she's achieved just the opposite. Her actions led to an angry response not only from Free Dominion users but also from others who don't like the idea of banning opinions. A new discussion thread lists over two dozens of blog posts, defending Free Dominion with many more out there posted since the last update. Many are already planning to stage a protest rally against the kangaroo court if the "human rights commission" decides to proceed with the complaint.

From the blogs, the story made it to the media; not only to the Life Site, Canada Free Press and the Kingston Whig Standard, but also to the World Net Daily and The Washington Times. Connie was interviewed on Michael Coren's Radio Show. The story even made it to Europe with the French Patriotic Forum "Paroles de France" noticing the blog post at Le Ciel Est Bleu blog. Bill's leaflet was translated to French and the message that Ms. Gentes wanted to silence is now available to tens of millions of French speakers worldwide.

The situation became even more comical when The Globe And Mail decided to break the silence and come up with a coverage of its own. The author choose to concentrate on how controversial Bill's views are, making those views known from coast to coast. And guess what, some may find that Bill's arguments quite convincing.

After all, why would any woman (except a hate-driven leftie like Marie-Line Gentes) be so upset about Bill Whatcott showing a picture of a beheaded Indonesian teenage girl on his website, raising awareness of the violence against Christians in Muslim countries? Wouldn't it be more logical for women to support Bill's fight against a culture which holds no other choice for them, but converting (and accepting their status as "inferior" to men) or becoming just like that teenage girl on the picture?

The author is quite cautious when he quotes Connie's arguments. But common sense is not that easy to silence:
"If someone says something that is over the top, it's better to allow them to say it and have everybody else ... discredit them and use logic ... than to just delete it," Ms. Wilkens said.
How many Globe and Mail subscribers are reading that right now? How many of them would agree that the best way to fight opinions you don't like is by using logic, not censorship?

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

"Stand Your Ground" makes it to The Interim

A picture which I took at the Fredericton March For Life has been published by The Interim. Unlike the other picture that appears in the online version of the article, mine even made it to the printed version. (You can see it on page 3 of the June newsletter.) While The Interim didn't specify where the picture is from, I think it's still a great achievement for a blog that's just a few months old. I'm looking forward to have some of my articles published there as well.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Truth-Bashers Attack Free Dominion - Update

To summarize what's known so far:

First of all - the name of the complainer is Marie-Line Gentes, not Mary-Lynn.

The subject of the complaint is Bill Whatcott, who has already been the target of complaints by other quasi-judicial tribunals for exposing the truth about perverse lifestyles. Saskatchewan "human rights tribunal" fined Bill $17,500 for distributing flyers, featuring a photocopy of a classified ad posted by a sodomite who solicited young boys "age unimportant".

Marie-Line Gentes a wildlife biologist who studied at the University of Saskatchewan and now teaches at Vanier College in Quebec. She obviously has a serious hate on for Bill Whatcott and Free Dominion is caught in the crossfire.

Here are the messages that make Ms.Gentes feel discriminated against:
From the complaint:

03/09/06 "To see the original hitting Edmonton mailboxes tonight. (warning disturbing but necessary photo) http://takebackcanada.com/whatcott.html "

04/24/06 "I can't figure out why the homosexuals I ran into are on the side of the Muslims. After all, Muslims who practice Sharia law tend to advocate beheading homosexuals."

03/09/06 "I defy Islamic censorship and speak about what I believe is the truth about violent Islamism and its threat to religious liberty in Canada."

Those messages are obviously not politically correct. But the only way Ms.Gentes could find them discriminatory is if she believes it's her right to silence any opinion she doesn't agree with. The last time I looked at the charter, there was no such "right" in there.

Friday, July 20, 2007

Canada what have we done to ourselves?

Connie, the owner of Free Dominion forum, is still trying to find out what the complaint is all about. She talked to two different people from so called "human rights commission" yesterday, both had the complaint in front of them, both refused to provide Connie with any details.

Here's what another FD user, Theresa, thinks about this incident:
I find this to be so appalling that I am at a loss for words. Our tax dollars pay the salaries of these people and this system. This is inhumane to do this to someone, policy and procedure, cover my butt, before treating my fellow human being like a person. Meanwhile you have to wait and worry plus look after your children your home and the rest.

Canada what have we done to ourselves?

Did a better democracy exist then this great country before this nonsense took hold of our country?

Was my grandfather buried alive at Vimy Ridge for this Canada?

Did my husband lose a part of his father, because he fought in Europe for four years defeating Nazis, for this Canada?

Do you people on the left appreciate the sacrifices that have been made for you, by those who fought and by those who loved the ones who fought, to live in freedom you have enjoyed. Now you live in prosperity and you want to take those same freedoms from others?

I truly feel like walking away from the whole mess of the world and living my life quietly and as best that I can. If this country wants to be so stupid and whiny then let the chips fall where they may. It will not be pretty when those chips fall. I guarantee you that the people of today who cannot handle offensive speech, will not be able to handle a real fight to protect their country when anarchy breaks loose.

So many of my hopes were put on Harper to change some if this nonsense and he does not seem too concerned about principled conservatives, a little lip service here and there. Where can a person turn? I have been worried about this charge since it broke. Worried for you personally Connie and Mark, selfishly worried for myself, and worried for our country and our freedom of expression.

As [John Pacheco] stated, everyone will be a little more careful because somebody is watching and listening ready to silence their opponents. Is this the country we want? To be treated as children. To whisper so nobody can hear what we really think? Do you lefties actually think that you can suppress thought after you have suppressed the speech you do not like?
(Originally posted Here)

It's getting quite difficult to follow the main discussion thread with the new messages added faster than one could read them. I'm calling on my fellow bloggers, if you see an essay worth preserving, don't let it vanish in the archives, repost it on your blog!

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Free Dominion Persecuted For Allowing Free Speech

Connie and Mark, the owners of the Free Dominion forum, have received a letter from the so called "Canadian human rights commission", which stated that there was a complaint filed against the forum. While it was quite obvious that the biggest right-wing forum in Canada, with over 8000 registered users and over a million messages posted, could eventually be targeted by the truth-bashers and PC thugs, the letter itself looked more like a hoax.

Bill Whatcott, a strong supporter of free speech and family values, who's been repeatedly charged by the provincial branches of Canada's "Minitrue", was quick to notice several irregularities. First, the letter was delivered by the Express post, rather than by registered mail. The letter informed Connie of the complaint but didn't specify the full details of the complaint as it is usually done in these cases. Finally, a letter dated July 16th, stated that the response is due by... July 18th, the day the letter was actually received.

The letter was however printed on chrc letterhead. It included the investigator's email address at chrc-ccdp.ca as well as the telephone number, which (judging from the voice mail message) was the actual office number of the officer who sent the letter. When contacted, the investigator confirmed that:

• There has been a complaint against Connie, as the owner of Free Dominion filed to chrc by Mary Lynn Gentes.

• The complaint is about Section 13 of the "Canadian human rights act" that deals with what is considered "hate speech" and the internet.

• The officer investigating the complaint is John Chamberlain. He said this has something to do with something that was posted at sometime by somebody at Free Dominion. He would not tell Connie anything more than that about it.

• There is supposed to be another letter sent to Connie, this one with more details;

• When asked to explain the 2-day deadline, John Chamberlain claimed that there was a signature-required notification mailed in June, when the complaint was received by chrc. He didn't try to imply that Connie actually received it.

It looks like the opponents of liberty are going to try to use the same tactic they've used against other websites they wanted to silence. But this time they've picked prey who have teeth of their own. There are plenty of users pledging support, financial and professional, to prevent Canada's greatest stronghold of free speech from being shut down.

And so their rights which they maintained,
We swear to yield them never!
Our watchword evermore shall be,
The Maple Leaf forever!

Once again, we witness our right to free speech threatened by a leftie's censorship agency. Let it be the battle that awakes the sleeping giant, so once we win, those "human rights" tribunals share the fate the "court challenges program".

Discussion thread at Free Dominion and a brief summary.

Article in Canada Free Press.

Article on Life Site.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Census 2006: We Are Getting Older

Statistics Canada has released the latest census information on age and gender. Results in brief - we are getting older. An average Canadian is now 39.5 years old; almost two years older than in 2001. The youngest regions are Nunavut (median age 23.1), North West Territories (31.2) and Alberta (36.0). The oldest are BC (40.8), Quebec (41.0) as well as Atlantic Canada (40.8 in PEI to 41.8 in Newfoundland).

With fertility rate of about 1.5 children per woman, children under 14 are now only 17.7% of the population, down from 19.1% in 2001. Their share has shrunk to just over a half of what it used to be back in 1961 when one in three Canadians was under 14.

Sounds like too much math? Here's what all those numbers mean in plain English:
There are already barely enough young people entering the job market to replace those retiring as a result of the aging of the population, Statistics Canada says in its latest report on the 2006 census, a breakdown of the age and sex of the population.

“Population projections show that in about 10 years, Canada may have more people at the age where they can leave the labour force than at the age where they can begin working,” it said.
And here's something for all my "progressive" opponents out there; for all those who believe that family values are lame, that encouraging natural growth is racist and that our primary solution should be immigration:
While immigration has had a big impact on the growth of the population, the analysis said it has done little to stop the aging of the population.
Guess what, most of the "skilled worker class" immigrants are in their late 30s. Those who came in 1990s will be retiring together with the youngest "baby boomers". But there won't be enough young people to replace them.

The age and gender data for the 2006 Census was released shortly after the latest statistics on abortions. There were 100,039 surgical abortions in 2004, slightly down from previous year. 920 of them took place in New Brunswick. I wonder if anyone else beside me bothered to mention these abortions at the public hearings, conducted by the NB Population Growth Secretariat.

The brochure, distributed by the Secretariat mentions New Brunswick's low fertility rate. But it says nothing about thousands of babies the province lost to abortions during the last decade, let alone stating the fact that while our health insurance may cover certain abortions, it excludes fertility treatment. At the meeting, there were plenty of proposals regarding immigration and retention but there was little said about the culture of life.

Average Canadian is now two years older than back in 2001. Average New Brunswicker is three years older. With the median age at 41.5, New Brunswick is the third oldest Canadian province (after Newfoundland and Nova Scotia). As the government looks for the solution to population crisis, it's important that we speak up for fetal rights and the culture of life. New Brunswick is aging faster than the rest of Canada. And you know what comes after aging.

Monday, July 16, 2007

How Does It Feel To Be Less Equal?

They try making it sound positive: "affirmative action", "employment equity", "corrective" or even "positive discrimination" as if a discrimination could actually correct the injustice, let alone being "positive". Those who support it could hardly explain us its purpose. Some claim it ensures equality and protects people from being denied jobs or benefits just because of their origin. Others go a little further, suggesting that ethno-cultural minorities could be given preferential treatment if both candidates are equally good and a decision can't be made based on skills and merit alone.

None of that is true. Here's a glimpse on how the hiring process is actually done:
Only by claiming that he is a homosexual could McNamee have made this decision difficult for the DePaolo administration. But, unfortunately for him, he is straight. On second thought, he could have qualified for the job by a) getting a sex change and, b) continuing to be “oriented” towards women. This would even the score to Mehrtens two (black and female), McNamee two (female and homosexual). The tie would have then been broken by relevant considerations. In such a scenario, McNamee would win.
Even though merit and skills are still referred to as relevant considerations, they are by no means relevant when it comes to hiring. The primary factors are so called "sociological considerations" - gender, origin, lifestyle choice. And, unless both candidates appear to be "equally disadvantaged", merit and skills are not even considered. But guess what - the situation is not quite as bleak as one may think. Really!

As the letter states, white males are not excluded from hiring process unless an outgoing executive is a straight white male. So, when pigs fly and lobsters whistle, University of North Carolina will be ready to give straight white males a chance. The Public Service Commission of Canada promises none of that:
Who Can Apply:
• Open to: Members of the following Employment Equity groups: Aboriginal persons, visible minorities, persons with disabilities
• Persons residing in Canada and Canadian citizens residing abroad

You must meet both of the above mentioned criteria.
Looks like the PWGSC moratorium on hiring white males (which was supposed to end on March 31, 2006) has been extended indefinitely. By the way, white females better don't think they're on easy street because they are next!

But there's still hope, isn't it? There are always opportunities in the corporate world. While businesses too have to hire token minority executives, they also have to get the job done. If you agree to mask your superior's incompetence, they'll allow you to become his assistant and do all the work at half the salary.

Well, if we keep electing politicians who believe that discrimination against us is "positive" - do we deserve anything better?

Saturday, July 14, 2007

Kyoto Fanatics Fight Back

Few days ago, Dr. Marlo Lewis, a lawyer who works at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, published a well-reasoned article, criticizing a cap-and-trade proposal before Congress. Instead of limiting production growth with carbon taxes and wasting money on emission credits, Dr. Lewis suggested encouraging worldwide R&D investment in non-carbon-emitting energy technologies, eliminating tax and other political barriers to innovation as well as targeting international assistance on those threats to human health and welfare where we know how to do a lot of good for each dollar invested.

Here's an e-mail message he received from one of his opponents (one word had to be edited before republishing):
Marlo –

You are so full of c**p.

You have been proven wrong. The entire world has proven you wrong. You are the last guy on Earth to get it. Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.


Michael T. Eckhart
American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
Looks like this is the only way for earth-worshipers to win arguments.

Friday, July 13, 2007

Encourage Adoptions, Not Abortions

That was my message at the public hearing, which the New Brunswick Population Growth Secretariat held tonight in Moncton. There were about 15 speakers, each with his own ideas how to boost immigration or how to encourage people to stay in the province. I was the only speaker who mentioned abortions on demand and the thousand of lives which they claim in New Brunswick year after year.

Coincidentally, the lady who spoke before me was the manager of a fertility clinic. She complained that their services are not covered by the provincial health insurance, so families that need their help must pay from their own pockets. Unfortunately that can't be said about abortions, as 400 of them (40%) are paid for by the province. My message was - we better fund fertility clinics than abortions.

I asked people to think if they find it reasonable that 1000 New Brunswick babies are aborted each year while many New Brunswick families have to wait years until they can adopt a child or they have to spend thousands to adopt a baby overseas. I suggested that if our provincial government doesn't have the guts to use the non-withstanding clause to kick the Morguentaller's out of Fredericton, the very least they can do is to ensure that every woman who seeks abortion is provided with information about families willing to adopt a child as well as reasonable amount of time to think. That alone would save hundreds of lives and make hundreds of New Brunswick families happier.

Other speakers concentrated on other solutions, such as retention, repatriation and immigration. The latter received so much attention, that I found it necessary to suggest that unemployed, underemployed and returning New Brunswickers should also be entitled to as much help as the immigrants. Another speaker proposed "positive discrimination" to bring in more francophone immigrants, so the existing ratio between English and French-speaking population could be maintained. I reminded the audience that there's no way discrimination could be "positive" and if such quotas are introduced - that will only prevent many skilled professionals from settling in New Brunswick.

Finally I touched the issue of immigrants' credentials. My suggestion was - revamping the provincial nominee immigration program, so immigrants could have their credentials validated as part of their visa processing. Too bad I didn't have the time to mention the personal and small business tax cuts which were rolled back by the government just a few months ago, thus making New Brunswick less attractive to investors. Oh well, whatever I managed to squeeze in my 5-minute speech was good enough as it was.

Not sure if people really liked what I've said but nobody heckled or booed me when I started talking about abortions. A couple of people approached me once the meeting was over, asking me where I'm from and commenting on some of the ideas I suggested. One of them said that my message may fall on death ears if those to hear it don't believe in fetal rights. Maybe so. But I've mentioned the number of abortions performed each year. I've mentioned what it costs the province as well as families who must adopt children overseas. My words were heard. And if they touch at least one heart - that's much better than nothing.

If you'd like to add to what's been said, next public hearings will take place in the following cities:
July 16: Woodstock, Civic Centre, 7 - 9 p.m.
July 17: Edmundston, Amphithéâtre de l'Hôpital Régional d'Edmundston, 7 - 9 p.m.
July 23: Dalhousie, Recreaplex, 7 - 9 p.m.
July 24: Caraquet, l'École des pêches – la salle Hédard–Lanteigne, 7 - 9 p.m.

You can also e-mail your submission to pgs-scd@gnb.ca or you can use the submission form at the Population Growth Secretariat Website.

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Alternative? Not for many.

A group of disgruntled conservatives plans to start a new party. Their ultimate goal is to provide a national alternative to the federal Conservative party. But a federal election this fall seems unlikely and contesting the upcoming by-elections is apparently too lowbrow for the group, so they decided to organize on a provincial level first, establishing the Ontario Alternative Party which will contest the provincial election in October. Anthony Silvestro, the leader of a new party, believes it would become an alternative to both federal and provincial Tories.

Anthony Silvestro and his supporters were apparently unaware (or unwilling to notice) that Ontario already has an alternative to its PC party. Yes, I am talking about the Family Coalition Party. So far that's the only provincial party that proposes actual reforms to provincial healthcare and education systems, rather than just suggesting throwing in more cash or downsizing schools and hospitals. It's family-friendly platform provides for broad-based tax cuts by eliminating wasteful spending, not by cutting back on essential services. So far the FCP is the only alternative for both Social and Fiscal Conservatives in Ontario.

But the founders of Ontario Alternative decided to act alone. Their platform calls for:
smaller government, across-the-board tax cuts, an end to "enforced" bilingualism and multiculturalism, and allowing municipalities to de-amalgamate.
That alone is inconsistent. If Anthony Silvestro wants smaller government - why would he de-amalgamate the municipalities? Wouldn't that only increase the number of city councilors, let alone bringing back the "Metro" or "Regional" councils - as they used to be before the amalgamation?

When it comes to social issues, Anthony Silvestro makes it clear:
"We are not going to get bogged down in social issues," Mr. Silvestro said, adding he does not want the new party to become a magnet for single-issue groups and voters.
Mr Silvestro opposes official bilingualism but apparently he's ok with publicly funded abortions on demand. As it turns out Ontario Alternative conservatism is nothing but the good old "PCPC" (politically correct poor choice) ideology which only remotely resembles fiscal conservatism.

We've seen that with Mike Harris whose government was so progressive that at the end of its 8-year rule the province was lacking some 300,000 kids with at least a quarter of a billion dollars (which would have come in quite handy to the cash-strapped hospitals) spent to have them aborted. Some may argue it was still better than the Liberals that delisted services, added monthly premiums for healthcare and extended public funding to gender change operations, but I doubt it would make any difference to way over a million of Ontario children that were denied the right to life since abortion was legalized. Nor would it matter for the taxpayer who still has to pay for abortions on demand from his own pocket.

So, if FisCons could hardly distinguish the "alternative" platform from the Ontario PCs and SoCons need not apply - who is the alternative for? Most likely - for the local PC party supporters that personally oppose John Tory. That may be enough to split the vote in a few ridings, but definitely not enough to win seats for themselves.

On the other hand, splitting the vote may not be that bad after all. With votes in some ridings being split five ways (between the Liberal, PC, NDP, Green and FCP candidates), it may actually give a fair chance to small parties (including the FCP) to win seats. Hopefully, none of the three major parties wins majority this fall, so Ontario could have another election in 2009, this time using Proportional Representation.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

No teenager would be allowed to read this

Have you ever wondered whether the content of your blog is suitable for children? Check out the Mingle2 website which rates blogs as if they were movies. I run this test on my blog and here's what I got:
This rating was determined based on the presence of the following words:
• abortion (21x)  • death (3x)  • kill (2x)  • bomb (1x)

Are you sure? I bet the last three words are well known not only to 17 year-olds but to any 7 year-old who plays video games. As for the word "abortion" - I doubt there's any 17 year-old who doesn't know what it is; after all, the so called "sex education" lessons start at grade 8 (if not earlier). So while 13 year-olds are not allowed to hear the word "abortion" in the movies, they could always hear it in class, as their teacher or a guest speaker from "planned parenthood" explains them that killing the unborn is a legitimate "choice" if other methods of contraception fail.

If you think that's the worst there is in those lessons - sorry to disappoint you, there's much more.
Those in 8th grade, for example, may be asked to ponder their “gender identity.” Is this the same thing as your actual gender, which should be, ummm, obvious by this time? No. Students are told that it’s “your identification of yourself as a man or a woman, based on the gender you feel to be inside.”
Students in 10th grade, meanwhile, read “coming out” stories from homosexuals, a bi-sexual and one “transgendered” individual.
A public school curriculum gives our children absolutely no knowledge on maintaining a steady relationship and building a successful family. Introducing a teenager to Psychology and Socionics? Forget it! Instead, our children are flooded with information about every perversion there is. Some textbooks (like the ill-famous "little black book") actually promote the most selfish and perverse types of intercourse as "safe" simply because they never result in pregnancy.

I bet, if an average "sex education" lesson was made a movie, it would most likely be R-rated. So how come the same rules that apply to our movies don't apply to our schools?

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Hate or Just Common Sense?

The author of a blog named "towards a just society" believes that denouncing a lifestyle choice makes one a hate monger. He blasts Suzanne for posting a rather sarcastic comment on public nudity on her blog and then daring to defend her freedom of speech by saying that preaching the truth about the sinfulness and negative outcomes of homosexual behaviour is not "hate". "If that’s not hate, I’m not sure what it is", the "TAJS" blogger says. Then he adds:
Suzanne doesn’t get the idea that going around saying that something is evil, vile, wrong and sinful, results in people being robbed, beaten, pistol whipped, tied to a fence in a remote rural area and then being left to die. It also results in poor, gay kids thinking that they are not good enough to live in this world.
Could you imagine? Just because we keep telling them that homosexuality is morally wrong, socially destructive and a serious health hazard!.. But before we start shedding crocodile tears, let us remember that there's another group whose lifestyle choice is being denounced.

Those are smokers. Bashing smoking became so common in our society that we hardly notice it anymore. We got used to seeing people outside on a could January day smoking cigarettes under a heavy snowfall - because smoking is banned in so many places that it's easier to say where smoking is (still) permitted. We don't mind the excise taxes on cigarettes being more than they worth with GST/PST/HST on top of that. We accept it as norm that someone may refuse to rent an apartment to a smoker. We never object the health warnings which appear on every pack of cigarette, where a text message like "smoking causes lung cancer" comes with a picture of one's lungs, damaged by smoking... But according to the author of "towards a just society", that's nothing but hate and discrimination. Moreover, this "hate and discrimination" is instituted by the same "socially progressive" politicians that angrily condemn anyone who dares to tell the truth about sodomy.

Why is that? Do they actually hate smokers, as one could conclude if he accepts the TAJS blogger's definition of "hate"? Or do they simply understand that smoking is a lifestyle choice that should be discouraged? The latter sounds more reasonable. Negative consequences of smoking are well known, so even the smokers themselves agree that they've made a bad lifestyle choice. That's why we have no smokers' pride parades. That's why we don't have smokers' activists demanding smokers' clubs and "smoker-friendly" curriculum in public schools. That's why no activist would ever consider it appropriate to approach a child and exhale tobacco smoke right in his face.

But who said that sodomy is better than smoking? So far all the researches show otherwise. Smoking could shorten one's life by up to 7 years. Homosexual lifestyle choice reduces lifespan by as much as 20 years if not 25. When talking about health hazard, lung cancer from second-hand smoke looks like nothing compared to AIDS stats which show sodomy and dangerous sexual practices responsible for ~70% of the cases.

So why does the TAJS blogger believes that unlike smoking, homosexual lifestyle choice should be immune from criticism? He mentions violence and suicide but does the constant anti-smoking campaign result in smokers being beaten up or otherwise abused? Do we see many smokers committing suicide because they don't have the will-power to quit? Facts clearly show that denouncing a lifestyle choice doesn't lead to violence. Moreover, there would be no reason for Suzanne to post her comments on public nudity if it wasn't for a provocative action taken by several homosexual activists at their shameful parade in Toronto.

So far there are 7 comments for the "towards the just society" posting which accuses Suzanne of hate mongering. The last one, where TAJS blogger thanks his friends for support reads: "How does that old saying go? “Progress occurs with every funeral”?". Could there be a better example of a Liberal tolerance and acceptance?

Sunday, July 8, 2007

Let's address the real problem

Here's a great invention that addresses the real problem. Not the so called "global warming", but air pollution and smog in our cities.
The CAT is powered by a thermodynamic motor that runs on air that’s been compressed to 4,350 psi. When the air enters the engine it expands and exerts force on pistons, thus creating the power. When the driver presses the accelerator pedal, a valve opens which sends air to the engine. The CAT has a 52-gallon compressed air tank that powers either a 15 or 22 horsepower motor, enabling the car to reach a top speed of between 90 to 110 km/h (68 mph), and travel up to 200 km (125 miles).
It would be nice to see some of those on our highways. So far their only noticeable disadvantage is the relatively short travel range - 200km per fill-up. So even a trip from Moncton to Halifax would require stopping in the middle for refueling (repumping, to be precise).

However, the savings on fuel make it worthwhile. It only takes $2 worth of electricity to refill the compressed air tank, which is enough for 200km travel. Even if the gas stations start charging twice as much for compressed air, still that would only be 2 cent per kilometer, compared to at least 6.5 cents for the most fuel efficient cars (6 liters per 100km at $1.08 a liter). Cleaner air and cheaper travel - that's killing two birds with one stone. With absolutely no need for Kyoto and its carbon trading scam.

Saturday, July 7, 2007

Gore: Ignorant or Dishonest?

In his July 1, 2007, New York Times Op-Ed piece, (“Moving Beyond Kyoto,”) Al Gore states:
Consider this tale of two planets. Earth and Venus are almost exactly the same size, and have almost exactly the same amount of carbon. The difference is that most of the carbon on Earth is in the ground – having been deposited there by various forms of life over the last 600 million years – and most of the carbon on Venus is in the atmosphere.

As a result, while the average temperature on Earth is a pleasant 59 degrees, the average temperature on Venus is 867 degrees. True, Venus is closer to the Sun than we are, but the fault is not in our star; Venus is three times hotter on average than Mercury, which is right next to the Sun. It’s the carbon dioxide.
No, Mr. Gore, it’s not the carbon dioxide. If you take the trouble to do an internet search on Google for “carbon dioxide” + “Martian atmosphere,” you will learn that the Martian atmosphere is 95 percent carbon dioxide, yet the average surface temperature on Mars is –63° C (–81° F).
Great article by George Reisman. A suggested reading for all those who believe that without Kyoto protocols the earth will be toasted in no time. They may be quite surprised to find out that Earth atmosphere has only 0.0383% (383 parts per million) of Carbon Dioxide, as opposed to 96% on Venus or 95% on Mars.

Friday, July 6, 2007

Say hello to Partie Chinoise

A new provincial party has been established in BC. Its goals are to "create better living and working conditions for immigrants and raising the profile of all Chinese living overseas". The party is named "national alliance party"; no more, no less. May I ask what nation are they referring to?

It seems like in addition to the First nations (the aboriginals) as well as Second nation within Canada (Quebec) we'll soon have Third nations - immigrants from China. If you think I'm wrong - try to explain the logic behind using the word "national" to name an ethnic-based political party.
At a press conference to unveil the party, party leader Weiping Chen, who originally hails from Beijing, said first-generation immigrants face challenges that the other political parties have failed to address.

"It’s not only about jobs but many other supports that immigrants need that they’re not getting from the government," Chen said in Mandarin. "Many immigrants arrive in Canada with master’s degrees and can only find work in convenience stores," he said.
Wait a second. Did someone force Chen to come here? Was he sentenced to life in Canada or did he choose to settle in Canada at his own will? If Chen believes that going to Canada was a bad choice - why should Canadians be held responsible for it? After all, the doors are open and if he doesn't like it in Canada, he could choose any other country to settle in.

Let's say - Australia. They too have the skilled workers immigration program, just like Canada. But here's the catch - Australia requires each potential immigrant to have his language and employment credentials confirmed by a competent authority before they are even allowed to submit their application. Those who make it, have much less problems finding jobs that suit their skills. But of course, that makes it more difficult to get in than under a Canadian model, where having a diploma and a proof of work experience is considered enough. Could that be the reason why Chen didn't choose Australia in the first place?

There's no official ban on the immigration reform debate, but no political party dares to touch the issue nowadays. Back in 2001, as the Parliament was debating the new immigration act, Canadian Alliance called for a complete overhaul of our immigration laws, with the proposed system being quite similar to the Australian model. The advantages were obvious. Not only the new system would have made job search easier for the newcomers, but it would have reduced the processing time to 3-6 months, as opposed to 3-6 years it takes to obtain immigration visa under existing model.

Immigration reform was integral part of the Canadian Alliance platform. But when the Alliance was merged into the leftovers of the Mulroney party, the old PC functionaries did their best to ensure the new Conservative party by no means resembles the good old Canadian Alliance.

So we've got the "national alliance party" instead. Chen made it clear that the goal is to establish a Federal party as well. Thus in addition to the Partie Chinoise we might as well have the Bloc Chinois. How do you say "Vive La Colombie Britannique Libre" in Chinese? I guess we'll find that out soon enough.

Thursday, July 5, 2007

Thoughts on dual citizenship

It's been 30 years since Canada allowed dual citizenship. Not sure if it was a hot topic back in February of 1977 but as years went by we ended up with the Governor General holding a dual citizenship. Michael Jean later renounced her French citizenship but the issue of dual citizenship came to light. Then there was a war in Lebanon, when the government had to evacuate thousands of... Canadians with Lebanese passports? Lebanese with Canadian passports? I believe that since they chose to settle in Lebanon, the latter is more accurate. Again, there was some discontent among the people that Canadian citizenship became a mere passport of convenience. And finally we had the Leader of the Opposition having to renounce his French citizenship so the party he leads could have at least some support outside of Quebec.

According to the research conducted by the Dominion Institute, 39% of Canadians believe Canadian citizens should not be allowed to simultaneously hold citizenship of another country. The CBC article doesn't state how many of the remaining 61% are strongly in favour of allowing dual citizenship and how many are simply unsure. However, a near-40% opposition to dual citizenship hints that the government better starts looking for ways to make sure that Canadian citizenship is not taken unfair advantage of.

Some view dual citizenship as divided loyalty. That's not always true. Often the old citizenship is simply too expensive to get rid of. So a man is officially considered a citizen of another country even though his passport has expired long ago and he has no other ties to that country. On the other hand even if one has to renounce the citizenship of his country of origin, that doesn't mean he would automatically cut off all the ties to that country.

Many people ceased to be Canadian citizens between 1947 and 1977 because their parents became citizens of another country, renouncing their Canadian citizenship for themselves and for their children. Some of those who were stripped of their citizenship as children are still unable to return to Canada; often they are required to reapply for immigration - as if they were strangers. That's why I don't support the ban on dual citizenship as it existed before 1977.

At the same time I do believe that Canadian citizenship is granted under certain conditions and should not be used for a sole purpose of a visa-free travel or immunity from prosecution. I believe there must be clear set of guidelines that would allow stripping such "also Canadians" like Khadr & Co of their citizenship and sending them back to a country to which they are loyal.

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

Where have all the people gone?

The NB government is holding public hearings this month to get input on our province's population problems. This is our opportunity as pro-life citizens to have our voice heard on how abortion is depriving our province of children. Just think: 10,000 babies lost in the last 10 years due to abortion!

Hearings will take place in the following locations:

July 4: Saint John, Le Faubourg, 125 Prince William Street, 7 - 9 p.m.
July 5: Fredericton, Centre Communautaire Saint- Anne - Priestman Street, 7 - 9 p.m.
July 10: Miramichi, NBCC – Lecture Hall 1145, 7 - 9 p.m.
July 11: Bathurst, CCNB Bathurst, Room N324, Main Building, 7 - 9 p.m.
July 12: Moncton, Université de Moncton - Théâtre Rémi Rossignol, Science Building 7 - 9 p.m.
July 16: Woodstock, Civic Centre, 7 - 9 p.m.
July 17: Edmundston, Amphithéâtre de l'Hôpital Régional d'Edmundston, 7 - 9 p.m.
July 23: Dalhousie, Recreaplex, 7 - 9 p.m.
July 24: Caraquet, l'École des pêches – la salle Hédard–Lanteigne, 7 - 9 p.m.
It's worth mentioning that all other politically-correct "solutions" to demographic crisis (immigration, international students, repatriation etc) have been tried already, have cost taxpayers millions of dollars but have achieved nothing. There is only one workable solution - bring back the culture of life. New Brunswick didn't have any population problems in the days when a child was viewed as a blessing, not as a "problem" of which one could "choose" to get rid.

Finally - here's a great song. It comes from Quebec but it's not necessarily about Quebec. I guess every province and every state could say the same about their ancestors and themselves.

Tuesday, July 3, 2007

The most we could expect from CBC

Here's the long-awaited Canada Day coverage of the Great Canadian Wish List. Just as the CBC promised, they dedicated a whole 3 minutes and 15 seconds of air time to the Facebook contest and to the wish that received the most votes. Aired at 7:34 AM Eastern time. So if you are not an early bird from Newfoundland and you don't actively participate in Vancouver's night life - you might have missed it, just like I did. Well, thanks God someone managed to get it recorded! (And it was quite amusing to see Suzanne's blog in there too :)

The CBC didn't like the results. They didn't hide that if not from day one, then from day 3 or 4 of the contest when the wish to abolish abortion became the most supported. Mike Wise did his best to ensure free and civilized discussion. That however can't be said about the CBC blog on which the editorials on the contest were published. It wasn't rare when the only quote in the editorial was against the wish. When it came to comments, the editors were clearly favoring the pro-abortion side.

Then came the big day. A picture is worth a thousand words, so just look at the narrator's face as she announces the wishes. She lists the top 5 in the reversed order, so she could start with the wish to lower tuition fees. As she lists the wishes, she ends the sentence by mentioning the wish for Canada to retain poor choice. Oh, she doesn't want to go any further... Sports commentators who must announce the defeat of a favorite team usually have much more control over their feelings.

I wonder if Mike Wise, who organized the contest, as well as over 19,000 participants who took their time to submit over 3,000 wishes could ever imagine that CBC will try to sweep the results under the rug, airing their coverage at the time when it could be seen by the least possible number of viewers? Well, I guess those 9543 of us who supported the wish to abolish abortion should have known that CBC wouldn't give up without a fight.

Either way, Mike deserves plenty of thanks from all of us for the hard work he's done organizing and moderating the Great Canadian Wish List. And I'd like to thank everyone who supported the wishes to abolish abortion and to restore the traditional marriage. We've proven once again that those issues are by no means "settled". The contest is over, but the Abolish Abortion cause on Facebook contains over 8,000 members. We won. And we are here to stay.

Sunday, July 1, 2007

Watch the CBC!

Happy Canada Day everybody!
The Great Canadian Wish List contest on Facebook has entered its final stage. Today is the day CBC is supposed to offer media coverage to the most supported wish. As of midnight, the results were:

Abolish Abortion in Canada: 9543 supporters.
• Wish that Canada retains poor choice: 8006 supporters.
• For a spiritual revival of our nation: 4508 supporters.
• Restore the Traditional Definition of Marriage: 4485 supporters.
• Wish for tuition fees to be lowered or eliminated: 3387 supporters.

We won! Thank you again for supporting pro-life cause on Facebook. Now it's time to watch the CBC. Watch the Canada Day broadcast and watch the coverage they give to the wish to end abortion. If CBC pulls one of its favorite tricks, trying to downplay Canada's support for fetal rights (as it did with the March for Life), let's make sure we are ready to nail them, just as we did back in May.

O Canada - the forgotten song

Back in 1880 O Canada was a French-Canadian patriotic song for the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society. Its English version, written in 1908, was considerably different than the original text. Believe it or not, both English and French lyrics contained 4 (four) verses. Yet when O Canada became Canada's national anthem in 1980, it was decided that one verse in either language is enough.

Later it became common to sing O Canada half in English, half in French, so even that single verse turned out to be too much as it's rarely sung in full. The original text however, had 4 verses. Unlike the English lyrics, the French lyrics were never altered. The last three verses were simply forgotten. Here's the full French version:

Ô Canada!
Terre de nos aïeux,
Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux!
Car ton bras sait porter l'épée,
Il sait porter la croix!
Ton histoire est une épopée
Des plus brillants exploits.
Et ta valeur, de foi trempée,
Protégera nos foyers et nos droits,
Protégera nos foyers et nos droits.

2. Sous l'oeil de Dieu, près du fleuve géant,
Le Canadien grandit en espérant.
Il est né d'une race fière,
Béni fut son berceau.
Le ciel a marqué sa carrière
Dans ce monde nouveau.
Toujours guidé par sa lumière,
Il gardera l'honneur de son drapeau,
Il gardera l'honneur de son drapeau.

3. De son patron, précurseur du vrai Dieu,
Il porte au front l'auréole de feu.
Ennemi de la tyrannie
Mais plein de loyauté,
Il veut garder dans l'harmonie,
Sa fière liberté;
Et par l'effort de son génie,
Sur notre sol asseoir la vérité,
Sur notre sol asseoir la vérité.

4. Amour sacré du trône et de l'autel,
Remplis nos coeurs de ton souffle immortel!
Parmi les races étrangères,
Notre guide est la loi:
Sachons être un peuple de frères,
Sous le joug de la foi.
Et répétons, comme nos pères,
Le cri vainqueur: «Pour le Christ et le roi!»
Le cri vainqueur: «Pour le Christ et le roi!»

Rough translation, courtesy of Free Dominion
O Canada,
Land of our ancestors,
Your head is wreathed with flowers.
Because your arm knows how to carry the sword
It also knows how to carry the cross.
Your history is an epic
Of the most brilliant exploits.
And your values, soaked with faith,
Will protect our homes and our rights
Will protect our homes and our rights

2. Under the eye of God, near the great river,
The Canadian grows in hope.
He was born from a proud race,
Blessed was his cradle.
Heaven holds his destiny
In this new world.
Always guided by its light,
He will keep the honour of his flag,
He will keep the honour of his flag.

3. From his patron, precursor of the true God, [i.e. from St. John the Baptist]
He has a halo of fire.
Enemy of tyranny
But full of loyalty,
He wants to keep in harmony,
His proud liberty;
And by the effort of his genius,
On our ground the truth is seated,
On our ground the truth is seated.

4. Sacred love of throne and altar,
Fill our hearts with your immortal breath!
Amongst this race of strangers,
Our guide is the law:
Let us be a brotherly people,
Under the yoke of the Faith.
And let us repeat, like our fathers,
the victorious cry: "For Christ and the King!"
The victorious cry: "For Christ and the King!"

Here are the English lyrics, written by Robert Stanley Weir in 1908. Although this wasn't the exact translation of the French lyrics, Weir's version of O Canada became the most generally accepted anthem in English-speaking Canada. The text was altered by the Parliamentary committee in 1968 and modified again - in 1980. We know one verse. But there were four of them originally:

O Canada! Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide, O Canada,
We stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land, glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee;
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

2. O Canada! Where pines and maples grow,
Great prairies spread and Lordly rivers flow!
How dear to us thy broad domain,
From East to Western sea!
The land of hope for all who toil,
The true North strong and free!
God keep our land, glorious and free.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!

3. O Canada! Beneath thy shining skies,
May Stalwart sons, and gentle maidens rise.
To keep thee steadfast thro' the years,
From East to Western sea.
Our own beloved native land,
Our true North strong and free!
God keep our land, glorious and free.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!

4. Ruler supreme, who hearest humble prayer,
Hold our Dominion, in thy loving care.
Help us to find, O God, in thee,
A lasting rich reward.
As waiting for the better day,
We ever stand on guard.
God keep our land, glorious and free.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!