Monday, March 31, 2008

Bloc MP: Multiculturalism Shouldn't Apply In Quebec

A private member bill that would exempt Quebec from the Federal multiculturalism policiy was introduced by Pierre Paquette, Bloc MP for Joliette, several weeks ago.
AND WHEREAS Quebeckers form a nation and must therefore possess all the tools needed to define their identity and protect their common values, particularly as regards the protection of the French language, the separation of church and state, and gender equality;
The Government of Canada’s multiculturalism policy does not apply in Quebec.
Bill C-505 has been placed in the order of precedence and, since the House Committee found no reason to declare it a "non-votable" item, it's going to be debated and voted on within weeks. The precedent is already there - if Canada's First Nations are exempt from the multi-cult policies, why can't the same rule apply to Canada's "second nation"?

Not sure what the chances are for the bill to pass, but I sure hope it becomes law one day or another to establish broader legal precedent for all Canadians. If it's possible for one province to be exempted from the multicultural policy imposed by the feds - there's no reason why the remaining 9 provinces can't follow suit. And if Quebec, as a nation within united Canada, has a right to renounce the multi-cult, the same right should be available for Canada - a sovereign nation.

Tolerate It... Or Else!

A great essay by Tristan Emmanuel, exposing the Liberal misuse of the word "tolerance".
But forget about the way the word sounds when rappers use it and think about the way it is used by liberals. In their world, tolerance is used to justify virtually every kind of degenerate behavior you can imagine, the kind of behavior four-letter words customarily describe.

If a man wants to "marry" another man, tolerate it!

If a woman wants to "abort" an inconvenient pregnancy, tolerate it!

If homosexual activists want "access" to kids at our schools, tolerate it!

Accept it.

Celebrate it.

Tolerate it.

That is, tolerate it … or else!

That is how liberals use the word today.

It wasn't always like this.
Somehow the Liberal understanding of tolerance is not "to discreetly accept with conditions" but to endorse their point of view or shut up. And if you refuse - then don't be surprised when CHRC goons come after you.

Sunday, March 30, 2008

Guess What - Canada Needs Babies

At least there is a national newspaper ready to admit that there is a demographic crisis in Canada.
In 2006, a whopping 15.3 per cent of the workforce was 55 years and older, up from 11.7 per cent just five years earlier. Geoff Bowlby, director of StatsCan's labour statistics division, warns that it's "inevitable that at some point soon, we're going to see a big onslaught of retirements of baby boomers that should continue for about 20 years."
If you think the immigration is the solution - think again:
According to a 2006 Statistics Canada report called, Canada's Population by Age and Sex, "Even a substantial increase in the number of immigrants could not stop Canada's population aging."

The report states: "if Canada was to admit four times as many immigrants per year, the population's median age would still increase, from the current 38.8 to 44.1 years in 2056. This would mean an average of about one million immigrants per year for the next 50 years. Regardless, the proportion of seniors would increase from the current 13.2 per cent to 22.3 per cent in 2056."

There are many good things about an aging population but the negatives are pretty obvious. Who, for instance, will pay for all of those hip replacements and social programs Canadians have grown to love?
Admitting a million immigrants per year won't stop the population aging. Especially if Canadian-born folks keep aborting and contracepting themselves out of existence. But does anyone really believe ethnic communities won't mind paying for our healthcare with their tax money? Why would they? And who could force them if they refuse? Even with the immigration levels as they are (250,000 a year) ethnic communities in 2056 will have more votes than today's Liberals and Conservatives combined; enough to vote today's major parties out of power.

Like it or not there's only one solution to Canada's demographic crisis:
"The only way to stop the Canadian aging process," states the 2006 StatsCan report, "is to increase fertility."

It's no accident that the world's most heavily taxed industrialized countries also have the lowest fertility rates. When Canadians have to work half the year just to pay the tax man, babies become economically impossible. By the time a couple achieves financial stability, the woman has often passed her best-before-date in terms of fertility.

So, what are governments doing to help stem this impending demographic disaster? Not much. Stephen Harper's Conservative government has tweaked the tax law here and there to make things a bit easier on young families, but much more needs to be done.

Meanwhile, the NDs and Liberals keep talking about "building" more day-care spaces as if that's going to help a young couple have children. It will just increase the tax burden and delay child bearing until later.
In other words - nanny state can't replace traditional family. A society that abandons family values and starts slaughtering its unborn babies for convenience ends up paying the price - in their own lifetime.

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Unwanted People Up For Disposal?

R. J. Grigaitis wrote a sarcastic essay titled The Right to Abort Shouldn't End At Birth. Here's one of the examples Mr. Grigaitis brings to ridicule the notion that getting rid of a son or daughter for personal convenience is a "choice":
If a 65 year old man wants to put his 90 year old mother in a nursing home but she wants to stay living in her house, she should have the right to abort him. No lawyers or courts should get involved. The woman should just have to sign a paper, and her son should be killed immediately.
Of course, Mr. Grigaitis is being sarcastic. But unfortunately the situation he described isn't that far from reality. Sure, there's no way a 90 year-old woman could have her 65 year-old son "retroactively aborted". But at the same time, some European countries allow the 65 year-old son to "assist" his 90 year-old mother with committing suicide. In other words - to euthanize her.

What happens currently in Canada is even more appalling. A hospital in Manitoba wants to remove life-sustaining treatment for 84 year-old Samuel Golubchuk, despite his family's objections. So far the judges ordered the treatment to be maintained. But for how long? It's enough to have just one lost appeal; all it takes is just a few more euthanasia supporters on the bench to give the hospital the "go ahead" to put an innocent man to death.

Euthanasia supporters call that a "mercy killing". But it seems like their motivation is purely materialistic. When Samuel Golubchuk was working and paying his income taxes - they needed him as a taxpayer. Now, when he's old and needs care - the hospital management is looking for ways to get rid of him...

It all began with abortion. It began with the notion that there are "unwanted babies" that could be disposed of as a matter of "choice". But if a baby's life could be sacrificed for one's personal convenience - why not sacrificing an elderly or a handicapped? If people have a "choice" to get rid of their baby - they might as well want to get rid of any other family member that becomes too "troublesome" and therefore - "unwanted"...

Mr. Grigaitis said that he was going to use lots of sarcasm in his essay. But unless our society upholds the right to life for every human being, from conception to natural death, Mr. Grigaitis' essay may become a terrible reality.

Friday, March 28, 2008

Stephane Dion — Worse Off Than Stockwell Day

Quebec Liberals no longer want Dion as their leader. They threaten to invoke a certain article of the Liberal party statute, that allows them to strip anyone (including the leader) of his party membership - unless Dion resigns voluntarily.

That story takes me back to 2001, when a similar leadership crisis was unfolding in the Canadian Alliance. The caucus, displeased with the results of the 2000 election (over 30% more votes, but only 10% more seats), wanted Stockwell Day to call the leadership vote. Day refused. Several Alliance MPs then left the caucus in protest.

The media sure had their fun back then, reporting each dissenting MP with gusto, guessing who was going to be next to quit the caucus and just making fun the whole story. Last year, when a similar crisis began unfolding in the Liberal party, the media was far more reserved. The fact that everyone suddenly started talking about it proves that things are getting really bad.

Sure, we don't yet have Liberal MPs quitting the caucus one after another, but the caucus is shrinking, despite the recent by-election wins. The list of the Liberal MPs that have resigned their seats or that have announced they won't run for re-election nears two dozens. Six months ago, speculations were that some of Dion's opponents in Quebec resorted to sabotaging the by-election in Outremont, willing to sink the leadership of Stephane Dion. Now they are willing to go as far as expelling him from the party...

The CBC panelists suggest this won't happen, since the caucus won't support the move. The Liberal caucus however has another option which wasn't available to the Alliance MPs - to force an election. It was suggested by the CBC panelists that Dion may soon be given an ultimatum by his caucus - show some leadership, force an election or resign. But in fact, the caucus may simply defy his order to not to show up at a confidence vote. And then...
"At this point in time, the Liberal Party of Canada can only rely on Ontario and the Maritimes to win over some votes. Membership is plummeting in Quebec, and some ridings wouldn't even have a Liberal candidate to vote for."
If Stephane Dion forces an election - he'll have to resign once the votes are counted. If he doesn't - he may still be forced to resign. Or the caucus may force an election against his will. It seems like Stephane Dion is even worse off than Stockwell Day was back in 2001.

And so is the Liberal party. At least, the Alliance had about 2 years after electing the new leader to unite its ranks and to recover from the crisis. The Liberal party doesn't have that much time.

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Peter O'Donnell: Warman vs Free Dominion — Socialist Revolution

This article was recently posted by Peter O'Donnell on Free Dominion. Peter makes some pretty compelling arguments about what's really at stake in the Warman lawsuit against Free Dominion and some of its posters.
The announced Warman lawsuit against Free Dominion and eight of its anonymous posters is analyzed by one of those posters as a case study in socialist revolution. The case will mark a significant escalation of this revolution, and here's why. — Peter O'Donnell.

Over the past seven years, since the election of the Liberal majority government of November, 2000, which was able to pass sweeping legislation enabling same sex marriage and more insidiously, legally questionable protections against social criticism, a small group of socialist elitists have turned the existing Human Rights commissions and tribunals into their own personal vendetta against conservatives.

The strategy behind this is clear and unmistakeable. First, isolated and relatively defenceless individuals were targetted, on the grounds that their religious witness against the homosexual agenda in Canada constituted hate speech. Of course, it never approached the implied meaning of the term hate speech, much as we dislike that term in any case. The discourse was usually a direct quotation of Scripture followed by a reasoned plea to stop interfering in the education system or in organized Christian worship.
With the insidious wording of Section 13 to guide them, the Warman clique was able to target various weakly protected individuals and bring them to kangaroo court justice, across the country. But this only whetted their appetite... ...They carefully selected groups who might fit the bill of being far right, white supremacist, or even anti-Semitic, as with the Lemire group now being prosecuted, and juiced up the action by apparently planting a number of articles that were generally far more legally actionable than anything the original defendants could have produced by themselves.
The laws being promoted and finessed by the Warman clique are nothing more than personal opinions of socialists, written into statute books and enacted as though they had any real moral or ethical standing. They do not, as is clearly evident when one considers the case of Pastor Stephen Boissoin of Alberta, who has recently been saddled with an entirely unwarranted charge of responsibility in other peoples' wrongdoing in the assaults on teenagers in Red Deer. This is the new replacement for due process and the foundations of law as we understood them before 2000 -- if the politically correct elite considers you guilty, then you are guilty, and this is what will happen to all of us, one by one, as we are called to account for our thought crimes, our failures to accept and then regurgitate the political correctness religion of the atheists and secular humanists.
Quite a grim picture. There's however an optimistic opinion on the situation as well. Dr. Mabuse from the The Kraalspace blog suggests that the Islamic lobby blew the game by picking high-profile, mainstream Canadians for their targets. The same could be said about Warman clique, which have recently moved from targeting unemployed marginals to persecuting mainstream conservatives on their largest political website, let alone going after a political party which promotes traditional values and Christian heritage.

Hopefully that would be too much for Warman & Co. Hopefully they not only lose their legal battle, but spark a public outrage, enough to bring some changes into Canada's political landscape and repeal all those gag laws - from section 13.1 of the Human Rights Act to "hate propaganda" bill C-250.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Agents Provocateurs Exposed

Kady O'Malley from Macleans live-blogs the CHRC hearing, where Dean Steacy (the CHRC investigator) was being questioned about why he posted provocative comments on several right-wing websites that were later targeted with "human rights" complaints. Richard Warman (a former CHRC staffer and a complainer enthusiast, responsible for the lion share of complaints under section 13.1) who apparently used the same tactics wasn't there to answer the questions. That was Warman's 20th consecutive day of absence from his own case.

CHRC wanted this hearing to go behind closed doors, but after a prolonged struggle, concerned citizens won their right to attend the hearing.
10:49:53 AM
Back again, and after a mere hour and a bit, we've been conditioned to all rise without the clerk saying a word. Although she still does. The last witness of the day is Dean Steacy, the CHRC staffer who admits to posting to websites as "jadewarr."
11:39:29 AM
More about Steacy's various Stormfront identities; he had a second account, OldinsRevenge, but never posted from that username. Someone. - the CHRC lawyer, I think - finally asks what the relevency is of this line of questioning, but Barbara notes that it seems there were several people posting to Stormfront, including Richard Warman....
(11:59:22 AM)
Asked if Warman knew that he had signed up on various sites - Stormfront, FreeDominion, WhitePower - he's not giving domain names, so it's hard to follow. He used the same username - JadeWarr - on all the sites he joined, and posted under that name to BC White Pride in order to try to get a mailing address for two posters, and "find out who they were."
12:31:04 PM
Barbara seems to have caught Steacy in an inconsistency - or, at least, a continuity gap, over when he first joined FreeDominion versus when the first allegedly infringing post appeared, according to the now-withdrawn complaint...
So the Big Brother is not only watching you - some of his agents may pose as a rebels, looking for supporters. They'll trick you into saying something politically incorrect and then they'll file a "human rights" complaint against you or against a website that has allowed you to speak your mind... As if naming an establishment that censors free speech and enforces political correctness a "Human Rights Commission" isn't Orwellian enough.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Justice For The Unborn!

It's a fact: life begins at conception. What the pro-aborts are telling us is that there are lives unworthy of living.

They suggest that if the life has just begun, then sacrificing it for one's personal convenience is a matter of "choice". Some even go as far as claiming that at the earliest stage of a human life, the baby is just a "blob of tissue" or that a mother and her unborn baby are "one body and one person"...

A picture is worth a thousand words. Well, here's a movie, at least half of which is dedicated to unrbon babies and their right to life. Don't believe me - see for yourself - those are babies, not "blobs of tissue". They got arms and legs - those are babies' bodies, not their mothers' bodies. And guess what - those babies got beating hearts, just like any of us. So let's open our hearts for those babies. Let's bring back the justice for the unborn!

Monday, March 24, 2008

A Testimony Against Pride Extremism

Let me assure you, even as a young, radical college student, I had no time for the clubby, leftist lemmings who comprised the early gay activists. They were dull, they were depressing, they always looked and acted as if they were born to be offended and victimized, they could never discourse for more than 5 minutes without hitting some tiresome barrier of resentment or ideology. So basically, I just avoided and ignored them because they had nothing to say to me or for me.
So I formed HOPE (Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism) to give a voice to gays and lesbians who choose to live with dignity and discretion, who don’t wake up every day looking for discrimination under the bed, and who don’t go running to the governments, the courts or the human rights commissions for a lifetime of therapeutic preferences.
This is the message that militant homosexuals don't want us to hear. Just like they didn't want the CTV to run a TV ad sponsored by Life Productions, because it contains a testimony of John Westcott, a former homosexual who had the will and strength to quit the destructive lifestyle.

Militant homosexuals tolerate no criticism, pretending to speak on behalf of anyone who might have any connection to the lifestyle they promote. But the fact is - no matter how noisy and influential are those promoting the current homo-political agenda, they represent no one but themselves.
What many people don't realize, and seldom hear, is that many homosexuals don't want to be homosexual. What many who are struggling with homosexuality don't realize, and seldom hear, is that they can change.

Sunday, March 23, 2008

Multiculturalism Is A Sedative

The concept of "multiculturalism" is often presented as coexistence and equality of different cultures. But somehow, nation's founding culture is always being treated as less equal, while violent and destructive cults are praised and encouraged.
In every culture there are to be found some dissidents or skeptics questioning its legitimacy and moral authority as those in the former Soviet Union -- Andrei Sakharov, Alexander Solzhenitsyn and others not as well known -- did. They exposed the lies of a system that rationalized the organized effort of tyranny to extinguish freedom, and their sacrifice eventually contributed to its demise.

But the oddity about skeptics in the West, as Muggeridge wrote about them and their liberalism, is the death wish to undo a culture where freedom, having sunk deep roots, thrives. They would replace this culture with a pale shadow of one negating all that is noble, life affirming, uplifting and founded on the values celebrated by the Christian church.

This is the great liberal death wish, a twisted psychology of that intellectual class which willingly goes out to buy the lies of a culture that entombs freedom, as was done in the Soviet Union -- and continues in places such as China and Saudi Arabia -- and fashion these lies as a cure for manufactured ills in the West, with the purpose of undermining it.

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Split The Vote, If That's The Only Choice

Once again, the Right Conservative is being denied Conservative nomination.
BURNABY, BC, March 19, 2008 ( - A revolt is brewing in the Conservative riding of Burnaby-New Westminster where the Party candidate in the last election - a strong social conservative - has been denied the opportunity to seek the nomination again despite massive local support. Last week directors from the local constituency association held a forum discussing their concern at the Conservative Party's decision to disqualify Marc Dalton, the Conservative Candidate of Record for 2006.

Prominent social conservative John Pacheco was similarly denied the opportunity to contest the Conservative Party nomination in 2005 which resulted in a firestorm of criticism for the Party.
Well, if the Conservative Party officials choose to ignore the Social Conservatives in one riding or another, there isn't much choice for the Social Conservatives except for nominating their own candidates in those particular ridings - even if it means splitting the vote.

Sure my majority-obsessed "Red Tory" opponents would be furious. They'll suggest that splitting the vote would make it easier for the Liberal (or the NDP or the Bloc) to win the riding... Well, if the people in the riding decide not to vote for a certain candidate - whose fault is it? Should we blame voters for voting their conscience or should we blame the party for taking certain groups of voters for granted?

And don't tell me about wasted votes. In the past election, over 30,000 Conservative voters in Halton cast their ballots for Garth Turner. Did that help them in any way? Did they at least succeed in securing an extra vote to prop up Stephen Harper's minority government? The only vote that is wasted is a vote for a candidate that doesn't represent one's views. Thus there were more wasted votes in Halton riding alone than there were CHP and Independent SoCon votes allegedly "wasted" in all other ridings.

Since the Canadian Alliance was merged into the leftovers of the Mulroney party there's once again the perception that Social Conservatives have nowhere to turn, so their votes might as well be taken for granted. We need to fight that perception. We need to make it clear that there's a limit to how much we can compromise.

No, I'm not saying that we should have a CHP or a Reform candidte in each of the 308 Federal constituencies and let the Conservative party plunge into obliviation - as it happened to the old PC party back in 1993. No matter what disadvantages Stephen Harper may have - Dion is much worse.

The right strategy would be taking back the Conservative party one riding at the time. Supporting those Conservative candidates that represent our views and nominating a CHP or an Independent pro-life, pro-family, Socially Conservative candidate in the ridings where the official Conservative candidates are in fact Liberals in the making.

Friday, March 21, 2008

Fixing Healthcare, Anyone? - Part 2

Did you know that HIV infection doesn't disqualify one from being admitted to Canada as a permanent resident? That's another interesting fact about the way the "progressives" manage Canada's public healthcare. According to CIC website, applications for permanent residence will not be accepted if an applicant’s health is a danger to public health or safety, or would cause excessive demand on health or social services in Canada. Yet somehow that rule doesn't apply to HIV positive applicants.
More than 25-hundred immigration hopefuls tested positive for the virus from January 2002 - when Ottawa first began screening - to the end of 2006. And only 126 of them were refused entry.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada says these people aren’t considered a public health risk nor an excessive burden on the medical system.
Then again, a Calgary-based medical-cost study done in 2003 said that on average, it cost more than $1,100 a month to care for people with HIV.
Over 2500 that applied, less the 126 that were denied entry, that leaves approximately 2400 that were admitted. 2400 HIV-positive newcomers times the healthcare cost of $1,100 a month - that's $2,640,000 a month or $31,680,000 a year.

And let's not forget - 2400 HIV-positive immigrants - those are only the ones we know of. There must be at least several thousands more that are unaccounted for, simply because Citizenship And Immigration Canada didn't bother to test potential immigrants for HIV before 2002. So in fact the overall amount spent on providing healthcare to HIV-positive migrants is much higher; probably - as high as $100M a year.

Even if it doesn't sound like much compared to Canada's multi-billion healthcare budget - how many hospital downsizings could that money prevent? How many much needed hospital beds in Canada's remote areas could that money pay for? Show me any province, any hospital that has some extra millions (let alone - tens of millions of dollars) to spend on accommodating the needs of a small, yet costly group of patients from abroad...

So why did the government at the time chose to place that burden on Canadian healthcare system? Because those migrants belonged to a special interest group nobody wants to be accused of discriminating against. And then they complain that our healthcare needs more money.

Thursday, March 20, 2008

New Brunswick Is Aging And Fading

Here's the grim statistics from the 2008 economic report, attached to the recent provincial budget.

New Brunswick's population continues to age. The median age reached 41.4 - almost 2.5 years older than the national average. One in seven New Brunswickers is aged 65 and over - with many more to join them in a few years time. Meanwhile, the natural increase fell to all-time low of 139, a consequence of 136 more deaths and 112 fewer births.

The report didn't mention the number of abortions that took place in New Brunswick during the past year. It will take a couple more years until the exact numbers for the 2007 are available, but the estimates are that there were about 400 hospital abortions and about 600 abortions performed in the Morguentaler's abortuary in Fredericton - about a thousand in total. At least 95% of them - with no medical condition whatsoever and with no psychological conditions (such as rape, incest etc) either.

And of course, there's no way a fiscal report would mention New Brunswick's feminists and other radical pro-abortion groups to whom unrestricted abortions through 9 months of pregnancy isn't enough; they want abortions to be available in every walk-in clinic - and paid for by the taxpayers. Obviously, there's nothing in the report about Morguentaller & Co suing the province to get all those abortions performed in the abortuary in Fredericton (that couldn't pass as medically necessary under the watered-down conditions set by the provincial government) paid by the province.

The budget itself promises a complete overhaul of the provincial tax system. It's expected that in April, the government will table a "green paper" that will outline the options for tax reforms. The paper would then be studied by the committee over the summer with the report due sometime this fall, so the actual tax reform is unlikely to take place before the next budget.

Obviously, implementing a punitive taxation on abortion clinics would be too much to expect from a centrist, "fiscally responsible" government. But at the very least the provincial government could bring in a few tax breaks for families with children, as well as a few incentives for families to have one more child.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Multi-Cult Cash Separates Us Rather Than Unites Us

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion criticized federal multicultural funding as dividing immigrants instead of uniting them, and called for better integration of newcomers.

"An awful lot of money is spent on multiculturalism and on keeping our immigrants separated rather than integrated," Ms. McCallion said in an interview.

"They've been given all kinds of money over the years to have their own organization, their own programs, and I think there should be more money spent on integration, in other words, encouraging them to get involved in all the organizations within a community like the service clubs and the sports groups."
Instead of wasting millions on multi-cult handouts, the government could have achieved much better results by overhauling the immigrant selection system, letting the actual employers, rather than politicians, set the qualifications for skilled workers.

Bring in the selection system that would allow potential immigrants to have their skills and credentials matched against the actual labor market standards. Get the provinces and the businesses involved to help getting the right people to the right places. Bring back the good old rule that every potential immigrant must be able to sustain himself and his family. And there will be no need for handouts.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

By-Elections - Not Much To Choose From

There was only one pro-life candidate - Donald Meredith, a Conservative. But what were his chances in Toronto Centre even without the nomination scandal in the riding? In other ridings it was a choice between moderate poor-choicers and radical pro-aborts. There may be one more vote for the Conservative minority government, but, according to Campaign Life Coalition, that's unlikely to become one more vote in defense of the unborn.

From the political prospective, both major parties got what they were looking for. The Liberals maintained their hold in all 3 urban ridings. The Conservatives won a decisive victory in Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River (which they lost on a razor-thin margin in 2006) and nearly won Vancouver-Quadra, so they can claim the final score is not 3:1 for the Liberals, but 2.5:1.5. The NDP didn't win any seats, but they didn't hold any of those ridings anyway.

The biggest winner was the Green party. With exception for the SK riding, Green party candidates ended more or less neck in neck with the NDP. I wonder if that has anything to do with the by-elections being held on Saint Patrick's Day...

And another thing worth noticing - is the extremely low voter turnout. 24.4% in Willowdale. About 25% in Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River where the Liberals parachuted in a token Aboriginal female candidate, instead of allowing a fair nomination vote. Even in Vancouver-Quadra, which could become a swing riding, voter turnout was 33.9%. Just one in three registered voters chose to go to the polls. All others stayed home - either because they didn't care or because they too didn't see much to choose from.

Monday, March 17, 2008

Progressive Censorship - Nothing But Cowardice

Debate is allowed only when it benefits the "progressives". Once they realize they have no chance of winning - any debate on the issue becomes "unacceptable".
Well that's how the 'progressives' work. If they want abortion or same-sex marriage or polygamy or whatever, then everyone better be 'open' to debate or they must be fascist theocrats. But as soon as they get their way then the 'debate is over' and it is 'time to move on' because those are now their 'human rights' and only closed-minded religious fundamentalist fascists would want to re-open the debate. They don't bother to mention that it was the willingness of the opponents to these movements to debate the issues in the first place that led to the current status quo. It is these 'progressives' who are the closed-minded fundamentalists, not the conservatives and religious.
Well said. It's not the first time when "progressive" student unions ban abortion debate on university campuses. Mark Milke, Calgary Herald columnist, suggests that banning debate on abortion is proof of closed minds. I'd say - it's a proof of cowardice. The only reason they've banned the debate is because they knew they were going to lose it.

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Wasteful Spendings And Plenty Of Them

Giuseppe Gori, the leader of the Family Coalition Party of Ontario has this question to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women Hon. Beverley Oda:
Why is our “conservative” Canadian government taking $18 Million from our taxes and giving it to International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF - a private, for money corporation) to export a culture of death to 180 other countries? Or even within Canada?
That's a great question. In fact it turns out that the Status of Women gets record funding this year. Somehow it was possible for Jim Flaherty to sneak in a budget amendment that would kill bill C-253 once the latter is passed, but he won't do the same when it comes to bankrolling special interests. Even though, instead of repealing bill C-253, Mr. Flaherty could have used it as an excuse to rid the budget of wasteful spendings.

So here's the grim reality: the CHP is often regarded as "single issue", "too exclusive" and "theocratic", the Conservatives wouldn't use the chance to get rid of the wasteful spendings and all other parties are to the left of them...

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Bring Some Common Sense To The Citizenship Act

MONTREAL - The federal government violated a convicted terrorist's Charter rights when it refused to issue him a Canadian passport on the grounds of protecting national security, a Federal Court judge ruled yesterday.
Fateh Kamel, a 47-year-old native of Algeria who obtained Canadian citizenship in 1993, was sentenced to eight years in prison by a French court in 2001 for terrorism-related crimes. An internal Department of Foreign Affairs report submitted to Federal Court says that at the time of his arrest he was "the leader of an international network whose purpose was to plot terrorist attacks and procure arms and passports for terrorists throughout the world."
Obviously, the Citizenship Act needs to be fixed. No, I'm not suggesting that anyone taking up another citizenship (or retaining a citizenship of his home country) should be automatically stripped of his Canadian citizenship, as it used to be before 1977. But the current situation when Canadian citizenship became merely a passport of convenience is yet another extreme, which isn't any better.

There must be a middle ground solution, that would allow law-abiding Canadians to live and work outside of Canada for as long as they please, but that would also allow the government to strip known terrorists such as Kamel or Khadr of their citizenship and let some other country (to which those guys are actually loyal) take care of them.

Friday, March 14, 2008

Fixing Healthcare, Anyone?

Our opponents tend to denounce Social Conservative position as "single issue". Real politician, they say, should be addressing a broader range of issues, such as healthcare, education, taxes - instead of just dealing with moral questions... Well, here's a healthcare issue:
ATLANTA, GA, March 13, 2008 ( - Twenty six percent of US teenage girls have contracted at least one of the four major sexually transmitted diseases, according to a study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released Tuesday. The CDCP estimates that 3.2 million US teen girls have an STD.

The study examined the sexual behavior of 838 teenage girls, half of whom admitted to having sex during their teen years. Of that half, 40 percent had contracted an STD.
Sure those are US stats, but even if the situation in Canada is half as bad - how are the fellow "fis-cons" and anyone to the left of them going to address it? I bet you dollars to timbits, none of them will address the root of the problem. No one will bother to notice that contraception-based approach taught in 75% of U.S. schools is failing young people. They'll try to fight the symptoms instead, recommending mandatory vaccinations for elementary school girls - as it's already done in some provinces. That's the "progressives'" approach to healthcare.

And where will they get the money for vaccinations? It doesn't look like our healthcare is awash with cash, does it? A "Fis-Con" would suggest cutting corners here and there or "sharing the cost with the consumer" - which means user fees. A Liberal would recommend monthly premiums - similar to the ones implemented by Dalton McGuinty in Ontario, which were also proposed by the Romanow report on a Federal level. Dippers' approach - raise the income tax for anyone who earns just enough to make ends meet.

Will any of them ever bother to notice that this expense is in fact obsolete? That if our children were taught the right values, there would be no need to vaccinate each and every school girl, before those girls may choose to try some of the stuff they learn in their "sex ed" class? Forget it! "Progressive" ideology is non-negotiable, no matter what it costs the taxpayers. That's the "progressives'" approach to taxes.

Education, anyone? Does anyone truly believe, education could be fixed with extra cash infusions, if we keep teaching our children something that fails them? Crime, anyone? Do you think we could tackle youth crime if we teach our youngsters that they can't control their desires, so they shouldn't even bother trying? Economy? Business taxes? Money for infrastructure spending? Can we really hope for an improvement in those areas if we keep wasting tens of billions on expenses that result from nothing but the secular fundamentalist values, which the "progressives" keep forcing on our society?

So you see, paying attention to moral issues doesn't make one a "single-issue" politician. It makes him aware of the core issue that affects all other others - including such prioritized issues as healthcare, education and taxes.

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Pro-Family Victory - Despite The Media Silence

Ford Motor Company conceded defeat. After nearly a three-year long boycott by the American Family Association, the company decided to end its support for homosexual political causes and publications.

I recall a letter, sent by one of Ford's executives to a concerned customer, that was published on a pro-family website back in mid-2005. It read something like "buy your Hondas you bigot, we've got enough open-minded customers that support our stand for diversity, so we don't need any business from hate-mongers like you and your friends..." Well, time has proven them wrong:
The boycott quickly gathered steam. Hundreds of thousands of people signed the pledge, and millions of AFA members received the organization's lurid reports on Ford's sponsorship of publications promoting sodomy and other perversions. Many other pro-family organizations endorsed the boycott as well.

Shortly after the boycott began, Ford's sales plummeted, and the company lost money almost every single month thereafter. Ford's continual slump was the subject of much discussion. Analysts began to wonder if it could survive.

However, if you didn't know the AFA campaign was occurring, you are probably not alone. As far as the mainstream media was concerned, it wasn't happening either. Despite the fact of the massive boycott, and despite the fact that Ford was losing billions of dollars annually, the mainstream media almost never mentioned it.
That's obviously not the only time the mainstream media proves itself irrelevant. In fact, as the new survey says nearly 70 percent of Americans believe traditional journalism is out of touch, and nearly half are turning to the Internet to get their news. For now, most of mainstream media outlets still believe they can do just fine maintaining the status quo. Gladly their monopoly is on the way out.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Fetal Rights - A Perfectly Valid Legal Objective

Yes, I'm talking about Canada. Contrary to what the pro-aborts say, the Supreme Court didn't declare restrictions on abortion unconstitutional. Neither did it "read in" so called "abortion rights" into the charter.
When the court struck down Canada's abortion law 20 years ago, Justice Bertha Wilson said plainly that protecting the fetus was "a perfectly valid legislative objective" and advised that "The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the state's interest in its protection becomes 'compelling' should be left to the informed judgment of the legislature."
So the Supreme Court struck down a particular abortion law which existed at the time, leaving it up to the Parliament to pass another (more equitable) law instead. In fact, such bill was introduced by the Mulroney government, but it was defeated by the Liberal dominated Senate.

After Mulroney, the Liberals (as well as their allies from the left) did their best to convince Canadians that a legal vacuum on the whole issue of abortion is the way the Supreme Court mandated it to be. But the truth is - fetal rights remain a perfectly valid legal objective. The Parliament has all the rights and powers to pass a new abortion law, once there are enough MPs and Senators willing to do so.

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

No Other Opinions Allowed...

The whole concept of so called "gay rights" is based on the assumption that homosexuals can't change their lifestyle. That was the reasoning the judges used when they "read in" the so called "sexual orientation" into the Charter and when they redefined marriage several years later. The very same myth is being used nowadays to bring homosexual propaganda into elementary schools.

But what if the facts clearly show that homosexuals can change and that the success rate among those who tried is quite high? Too bad for the facts. Dare to publish them and you'll be accused of "discrimination" and "hate mongering" by militant homosexuals. So, when a Christian advocacy group, Life Productions, posted a 30-second commercial on CTV, suggesting that it is possible for homosexuals to quit their destructive lifestyle, get back to normal life and start a family, the ad was pulled off the air just 3 days later. Was there actually anything hateful and discriminatory? Judge for yourself.

The ad, narrated by John Westcott, (the founder of Exchange ministries, an organization that seeks to help practicing homosexuals who wish to leave the lifestyle) goes as follows:
"You hear a lot about gay rights, gay marriage and the gay lifestyle being taught in our public schools for children," says Westcott in the ad, "but what many people don't realize, and seldom hear, is that many homosexuals don't want to be homosexual. What many who are struggling with homosexuality don't realize, and seldom hear, is that they can change. I should know - for 13 years, I used to be one."
John Westcott is himself a former homosexual, as is his wife Dena. He shares his life experience with others, talking about a problem he overcame. What's so "hateful" and "discriminatory" about that?

Most likely the ad ended up being banned simply because it challenges the "sexual orientation" myth the militant homosexuals use to shove their agenda down people's throats. Because that compels them to admit that the society can't be held responsible for the lifestyle choices they make.
People insist that orientation can't change ... maybe they feel so strongly about this because they want to believe they can't help their actions. No wonder they're so angry when someone comes forward and says they have been able to change.
Sheila J. posted that on the "wall" of a facebook group in support of Lifeproductions. Well said, Sheila!

Monday, March 10, 2008

Pro-Aborts Just Don't Get It

For them it's nothing but so called "abortion rights". If they believe there might be a minuscule threat to their unholy sacrament, then they don't care about the women that may suffer the injustice of being denied their choice for motherhood.
If I were the subject of an attack in which my unborn child was hurt or killed, I would be devastated and would want the perpetrator to be brought to justice for both the injury to me and to my unborn child. When women grieve for a miscarried child, they are not grieving for a mere body part. Whether they treat the fetus as a potential life or as a full-fledged member of the family, they are not grieving the loss of themselves, but of something other than themselves. And when they are violently deprived of him, it can only be said to be a violation of their rights, separate from the actual injury that they incur.

But the abortion lobby doesn't see it that way. The most vocal opponent of Bill C-484, Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC), has yet to acknowledge that losing a fetus is in itself an injustice.
ARCC's main concern is that C-484 would confer a type of personhood on the fetus and that would threaten the legality of abortion. Yet the reality is that C-484 does not in any way confer personhood or rights upon the fetus. It merely acknowledges that legally the fetus exists, and if damaged or destroyed intentionally by anyone other than the mother in an act of violence that the courts will punish the crime more severely.
Suzanne took some time off blogging, but she's got a great article published in the National Post. Great job, Suzanne!

Sunday, March 9, 2008

No, It's A Different Body!

If a picture is worth a thousand words, this video is worth a million. Abortion fanatics have recently made a pathetic attempt to convince Canadians that a mother and her baby - are just "one body". This ultrasound of Suzanne's baby proves them wrong.

So what's that after all? Little arms, little feet, little head... It's a little body. We see the arms and legs moving, we see the mouth opening... Not, it's not a mother's body, but a different one - a baby's body. A beating heart can't be seen, but it's there.

Why would the pro-aborts deny the obvious?
In the past, to justify abortion (and suppress our moral intuitions about it), the fetus has been classified as "potential human life." Letter-writer Vicky Smallman characterizes the fetus as a "potential loved one" to deny the fetus's existence and any legal recognition of harms and wrongs done to it and to those whose child or grandchild it is.

The adamancy of the pro-choice lobby's absolute stance that in no circumstances should the fetus be legally recognized, because they fear that might lead to people agreeing that the fetus exists, is human and is alive, shows how difficult that contra-factual position is to maintain.
That says it all.

Saturday, March 8, 2008

Brainwashing In Our Schools

Brainwashing is not, as some anti-Christian educators and students contend, the Biblical process of training our children to love and follow God. The word "brainwashing" refers to a planned, step-by-step attempt to "wash" family-taught beliefs from the minds of those who oppose government ideology. In America, it would mean replacing the old Biblical values and world view with a new way of thinking that would support a totalitarian agenda. In other words, every child must become a peace child, a willing and active servant of a new world order.
The article is titled "Brainwashing in America", but school brainwashing is not just an American phenomenon. Here in Canada we have quite a similar process going on. And it appears to be much worse in Europe; especially in the UK where Churchill and Gandhi have been dropped from school textbooks to make way for the lessons on debt management, the environment and healthy eating...

Concerned parents must work together to make sure the schools are there to educate our children, not to indoctrinate them. Although I'm not sure if still possible to take back the public education system or if creating a parallel independent school system and letting the government-run establishments die natural death would be easier.

Friday, March 7, 2008

CHP Candidates Wanted

When the next election comes, I'd like to see CHP candidates in the following 4 ridings: Carleton-Mississippi Mills in Ontario as well as Pontiac, Beauport-Limoilou and Louis-Saint-Laurent in Quebec. No, those ridings are not vacant. They are held by Gordon O’Connor, Lawrence Cannon, Sylvie Boucher and Josée Verner. Those MPs were elected under a Conservative banner. But not only they aren't Conservatives, they aren't even Red Tories (which is another name for Liberals in the making). They are just nobodies.

The Unborn Victims of Crime Act seeks to properly recognize unborn children as crime victims when they are injured or killed during the commission of an offense against their mothers. Just as Joel Johannesen states at the Proud To Be Canadian blog, that's not a “conservative” notion. That’s just sane. That's common sense which is supported by 75% of Canadians, including over 2/3 of the Liberal, NDP and Bloc supporters.

When it came to the vote, there was one NDP MP, Peter Stoffer, who had the courage to vote against the party line, supporting women's choice for motherhood. Those four nobodies on the other end decided they'd rather let dozens of other women to be forcefully deprived of their babies, than support a bill which recognizes there's more than one victim to an attack on a pregnant woman.

They voted against common sense. They voted against the bill supported by 72% of Canadians, including nearly 80% of Conservative voters. They call themselves "pro-choice", yet they voted against the choice of the woman and the child she has chosen to keep...
This is Canada, where the mere mention of the word “abortion” effectively guarantees the cessation of any reasonable dialogue. Much like discussion of private-sector participation in health care, the myths and goblins that surround the state of abortion in this country heavily outweigh any knowledge of the actual state of the law of the land, which is to say: there is no law. None. There may be a litany of regulations governing who can operate a backhoe or a restaurant in the various jurisdictions of our federation, but nary a byline addressing the provision of the termination of a human fetus.
The Liberals, the Bloquistes and the Dippers who voted against Olivia Law will each have a Conservative candidate running against them when it's time for another election. Those four nobodies however are likely to keep their Conservative nomination in spite of their despicable voting record (it's extremely difficult to unseat an incumbent). So we need someone else to provide the real Conservative option on the ballot. I believe, having a CHP candidate in each of those ridings is the best solution.

The Christian Heritage Party usually comes up with about 50 candidates in each election. Few of them however are nominated strategically. Yet those who do run in the ridings where no other candidate shares conservative values, end up getting the best results, as voters in those ridings don't have to worry about splitting the vote. So let's have 4 CHP candidates nominated not just anywhere they can run a candidate, but first and foremost in the four ridings, that are currently held by those pseudo-Conservative nobodies who voted against women's choice for motherhood.

Courts: No Opt-Out Of "Credentialed" Indoctrination

A three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal says parents in California have no legal right to home school. Even though the home-schooling program was in fact monitored by a Sunland Christian School, this wasn't enough for the judges:
The ruling reverses an earlier opinion from a Superior Court that found that “parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home.” But in his reversal, Croskey refers to what he calls the “ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school”, while actually “letting them stay home to be taught by a non-credentialed parent.”
As if "credentialed" teachers were actually doing a better job. At least parents will actually try to teach their children something, rather than just brainwashing them with militant leftist and secularist propaganda. At least, when children are home schooled by their parents, it's unlikely that their mandatory reading assignment would include a homosexual pornography book - as it recently happened at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Illinois:
The book is called “Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes”. It had been assigned as required reading to a group of students at Deerfield High.
The book is full of vile language, overt racism, multiple uses of the “N-word”, and explicit sexual descriptions including vivid depictions of anal sodomy and one scene purportedly describing a sex act involving Mother Theresa.
That's the kind of "credentials" the courts consider to be more trustworthy than common sense of a parent. That's the kind of schools they want our children to attend.

Thursday, March 6, 2008

Now That Is LAME!

Ms. Minna, Liberal MP for Beaches—East York is quite upset with the performance of the Conservative government. Not that the government actually rolled back the Liberal agenda (that wouldn't be possible in a minority Parliament), but it did slow it down a bit. So Ms. Minna is understandingly frustrated. And she blames... the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP for bringing down the Liberal government back in November of 2005!

No, I'm not making this up!
that, therefore, the House condemn the irresponsible and self-serving actions on November 28, 2005, by the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois which led to the installation of a government that is hostile to the rights and needs of vulnerable Canadians.
I wonder how many NDP and Bloc MPs (let alone - Conservatives) are going to support that kind of a motion... Does Ms. Minna also believe that not marking the X next to the name of a local Liberal candidate too constitutes an "irresponsible and self-serving" action? Then she won't like the results of this poll...

P.S. Speaking of the rights and needs of vulnerable Canadians - it turns out that Ms. Minna voted against the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act, refusing to give the most vulnerable unborn Canadians even the very minimum protection under the law that is available to wildlife animals. Therefore it's obvious, that when Ms. Minna says "vulnerable Canadians" she actually means special interest groups.

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

Bill C-484 Passes Second Reading

Great news for everyone who values human life and respects women's right to choose motherhood. Bill C-484 that would make it a separate crime to harm an unborn child while committing an assault against a pregnant woman (known as the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act) has passed the second reading in the House of Commons.
MP Ken Epp’s private members’ bill to protect unborn children from criminal violence passed second reading in the House on Wednesday. Almost the entire Conservative caucus voted in favour, along with enough Liberals and one NDP member to see it pass. The final count was 147 to 133 in favour of Epp’s “Unborn Victims of Crime” bill.
The bill has been facing opposition from abortion advocates who worry that it would set a precedent of recognizing and attaching some kind of humanity for unborn children; although they’ve been hard pressed to explain why they don’t oppose similar rules with respect to wildlife.

For example, penalties are much harsher in some provinces when poachers are convicted of killing pregnant wildlife as opposed to animals that aren’t carrying young.
The bill still has a long way to go before becomming law. But the fact that a pro-life bill went this far in a Parliament dominated by the left-wing parties is none the less amazing.

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

Foreign Aid - Just Another Failure

The opposition parties want Canada to contribute more to foreign aid. In the recent debate NDP demanded no less than 0.7% of the GDP or ~$11 billion a year. And, while the government isn't ready to go that far, it won't back down on the commitment to "double international assistance to $5 billion by 2010–11", made by the Liberals in 2005. But will all that extra money actually help the poor countries to become self-sufficient?
Many well-meaning liberals think rich countries could quickly and easily eradicate world poverty by agreeing to a major increase in transfers of their wealth to poor countries through higher foreign aid and more debt relief. But if that is true, how can one account for a deeply impoverished, oil-exporting country like Nigeria that has garnered more than $350 billion in oil revenue over the past 40 years -- a sum vastly greater than any conceivable amount of foreign aid and debt relief -- yet still languishes within the bottom billion?
Their answer - just keep throwing in more money and eventually, they hope, they'll achieve different results by doing the same thing...

Monday, March 3, 2008

Canada's Missing $69 Billion

So where did the money go?
In every budget, Canada's 14 federal, provincial and territorial governments predict how much money they're going to spend during the coming fiscal year. Much later, we learn how much they really spent.

A study suggests most of Canada's finance ministers should be in another line of work. The C.D. Howe Institute report -- Off the Mark: Canada's 2008 Fiscal Accountability Ranking -- reveals that in the past decade, spending overruns by these governments totalled a staggering $69 billion.
That's about $300 a year per taxpayer. No, that's not "less than a cup of coffee a day" as the tax-and-spend activists want us to see those numbers. That's $3000 an average taxpayer had to withdraw from his savings account (or - add to his credit card debt) during the last decade in order to make ends meet.

Sunday, March 2, 2008

"Cadscam" - A Lame Scandal

Diane Francis, a columnist for the National Post says that without wasting too much time investigating the $1M life insurance policy myth:
But it’s a lame scandal and won’t go anywhere because the allegation is made by an author and the widow of a man who, on the record, said no bribe was offered. Then he died. Then the book was published. It’s all second-hand. End of story.
As simple as that.

Now, as I've heard, we also have Chuck Cadman's daughter spreading the rumors about Mr. Cadman's deathbed admission about the alleged $1-million life insurance policy offer. The question then - where was she during the 2006 election campaign when scandal-plagued Liberals were hammered by the opposition parties? How come neither her nor Mr Cadman's widow used the opportunity to let the public know that Conservatives aren't any better? (If of course what they say now has anything to do with the truth.)

And that's just one of the few questions. Charles Adler has 22 of them.
4) Why would a man tell one story on the public and private record to a journalist and another to his wife and daughter?
7) If Cadman was angry at the Tories, could it be because their final offer, quite understandably, insulted him?

8) If the final offer was precisely what the Tories and what Chuck Cadman publicly said it was — an uncontested nomination and campaign expenses — wouldn't any of us be insulted?
Of course it shows that Stephen Harper had picked the wrong men to persuade Mr. Cadman. Obviously, those men weren't great negotiators. But they weren't crooks either.

Saturday, March 1, 2008

Got Some Spare Cash For Perverts?

Young Liberals of Nova Scotia believe you do; and if you don't - then you better get some, cause they want your tax dollars to go towards funding sex-change surgeries. And of course, the quasi-judicial "human rights" tribunals are way ahead of them.
Provincial funding for sex-change operations will be one of the topics discussed at this weekend's Young Liberals annual meeting in Halifax.

Resolution 11 says transsexualism is a congenital birth condition where there is a mismatch between the physical outward appearance of a person's gender and his or her inner perception.

"Other congenital birth conditions, such as limb malformation, heart and nervous system defects and genetic disorders such as a predisposition to a heart attack or heart disease, are currently covered under the Nova Scotia health-care system," so tax dollars should be used for "gender reassignment surgery for transsexual individuals, along with pre- and post-surgery care and counseling," says the resolution.
In British Columbia, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ruled the health services ministry had to pay $30,000 for previous operations done in California on a woman wishing to change her gender, plus another $93,028 to complete the gender-reassignment surgery.
And then they bash the tax-free savings account proposal, arguing that an average middle-class Canadian has no money to put aside. Of course we have little or no money left for savings, since a huge chunk of our tax dollars is already being wasted on funding special interest groups. But that's surely not enough wasteful spendings for the Nova Scotia Young Liberals.