Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Out Of Options, The Left Resorts To Name-Calling

Check out this National Post article by Charles Krauthammer:
Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted liberal ascendancy into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the “bitter” people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging “to guns or religion or” — this part is less remembered — “antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.”

That’s a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.

– Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the tea party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.

– Disgust and alarm with the federal government’s unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.

– Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.

– Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.

Now we know why the country has become “ungovernable,” last year’s excuse for the Democrats’ failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?

Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion.
The left doesn't like losing arguments. When they see that the public opinion is shifting away from them - they respond with name calling, misinformation and outright libel. The recent campaign against Crisis Pregnancy Centers, waged by the pro-abortion organizations and supported by the left-leaning media on both sides of the border, is yet another example of the left resorting to name-calling and similar tactics aimed at discrediting the opponent, when their own chances to win in an honest debate look extremely doubtful.

Monday, August 30, 2010

Australian Left, Canadian Right, "Boat People" And "Red Tories"

Lawrence Martin believes that Canada has undergone a shocking transformation.
The Canada we know was a blend of the centre and the centre-left. Now it’s a hybrid of the centre and the hard right,
- he claims in his Globe and Mail article. Hard right? Now, that is ridiculous. Here is a brief rebuttal from Suzanne:
Is there an abortion ban yet? Has the deficit been paid down and the CBC been sold?


Then it's hardly a party of the hard right.
Suzanne is perfectly right about that. If anything I doubt if we even have a political "right" (or even a "center-right") in Canada. Let's take a look at this example:
Here’s a warning for bogus Tamil refugees made by the Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, just before she called an election last month:

“Do not pay a people smuggler, do not risk your life, only to arrive in Australian waters and find that you are far, far more likely than anything else to be quickly sent home by plane.”

Gillard does more than just talk tough to Tamil gatecrashers.

Australia is now in negotiations with East Timor, New Zealand and the United Nations about setting up a “regional processing centre” where intercepted ships will be taken.

“Arriving by boat would just be a ticket back to the regional processing centre,” warned Gillard.

Right now, refugee applicants are processed on a remote Australian island called Christmas Island, where they’re held until their cases are heard.

Gillard wants to go one better — outsource the job to other countries. Why not?

Her plan is pretty simple. If someone’s refugee claim was rejected, they’d be sent home. And if a refugee claim were found to be legitimate, that refugee would be resettled — but in a safe third country, not necessarily in Australia.

There are plenty of friendly countries in the neighbourhood where Tamils don’t have to worry about being picked on, as they claim they are in Sri Lanka.

Australia would pay those countries to resettle Tamils — a lot cheaper than giving them five-star treatment in Australia. They’ll take some, sure. But they’ll choose which ones.
Oh, by the way: Gillard is with the Labour Party — they’re the soft-on-immigration party.
So, that's the Australian left. Obviously, it can't compare not just to the Canadian left, but also to what some still regard as the "center". Yes, I'm talking about the Liberals and their leader who believes that unlike Australia, "Canada has principles", that Canada's "international obligations" should take precedence over the nation's interests and that the Charter compels the government to offer these refugees a five-star treatment in Canada while their applications for asylum are being processed.

But what about Canada's only major right-of-center Federal party? Can we look forward for the governing Conservatives to come up with an initiative which goes even half as far as the one put forward by the Australian Labor PM? Of course not! First, they wouldn't dare to come up with any initiatives that may displease the ethnic communities in the three largest urban areas, whose votes are badly needed. Then, even if they dare to make even a baby step in that direction, they'll feel the wrath of all the Lawrence Martins out there, for whom anyone who doesn't toe their line on immigration and multi-cult is a fascist, a racist, a redneck, a bigot etc.

So, it turns out, Lawrence Martin doesn't really have worry about Canada becoming a "hybrid of the centre and the hard right". Sure, the Conservative party may actually appear somewhat right wing when compared to Ignatieff's Liberals. But not when compared to the Australian Labor. Instead of crying for the "red Tories" which "have no voice", L.Martin should have checked out the biographies of the National Council members and of the directors of the riding associations and figure out how many of them started their careers in the old Federal PC party or in its provincial branches. He would be pleasantly surprised. As for the other "moderate Tories" whom Lawrence Martin misses so much - well, he knows exactly where they went:

  • Jean Charest, who led the PCs following their demise - is now a Liberal Premier of Quebec.
  • Belinda Stronach, the pro-abortion, anti-marriage Conservative leadership contestant - a Liberal.
  • Joe Clark, former PM and a two-time PC leader - endorsed the Liberals in 2004, then (finally) retired from politics.
  • Scott Brison, who sought the PC leadership in 2003 - a Liberal.
  • David Orchard, another PC leadership contestant of 2003 - also a Liberal.
  • Garth Turner, who sought the PC leadership in 1993 and later served in Kim Campbell's cabinet and on her campaign team - returned to politics in 2006, lashed out at the Conservative electorate, ended up crossing the floor to the Liberals.

Those are the people Lawrence Martin wants to come back and take over the Conservative party. Back in the 1990s and early 2000s, Martin and his colleagues did everything they could to destroy Canada's political right, using all their influence and the power of their media outlets to make the success of the Reform (and then the Alliance) look like failure, compelling them to make more and more concessions to the "red Tories". Now, Martin & Co are troubled by the very thought that the Canadian right might have a chance of rebirth.

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Public Schooling Is Failing Canada

Fix the education system or watch the nation being reduced to a third world status, warns the Canadian Council on Learning:
Canada could slip into Third World status if its education system is not reformed to produce innovative and creative graduates who can compete globally, say experts responding to the latest report from the Canadian Council on Learning.

"The education system that Canada has is going to lead us to produce more and more people who are chronically unemployable," said futurist Richard Worzel, who studies societal trends and patterns to help clients plan for the future. "What this means for the country is the gradual slip into Third World status."
Canada also ranks low among OECD countries in the number of graduates in science and engineering, who are key drivers of productivity.

Moreover, 42 per cent of Canadian adults have what the council considers "low" levels of literacy, meaning they "perform below the internationally accepted minimum considered necessary for participation in a knowledge society."

Paul Cappon, president and chief executive officer of CCL, said Canada is not setting the conditions for future success.
Obviously, the left will try to use the study to advance their causes. They'll demand more funding for government-run schools, claiming that more money would result in better education. They'll campaign for an all-inclusive state-run daycare and mandatory schooling for 3 and 4 year-olds, because, as the study finds, "25 per cent of five-year-olds enter the education system poorly prepared"...

What they won't mention is that the vast majority of our schools are government run. That what the government already spends on an average student (about $9000-$11000 a year) is comparable to (if not higher than) a private school tuition. And, yet, in spite of all this "investment", public schools keep failing. Private schools, where parents have to pay the tuition with their own after-tax money and homeschoolers, who have to contribute their own time, often sacrificing work hours, tend to do much better job.

So what's needed is not more "investment" into the government-run virtual monopoly on education, but more competition between schools, that would make the public school principals worry about losing students and funds should they fail to meet the parents' expectations. We need a voucher system that would allow the parents to freely choose between public, private and home schooling, instead of being compelled first to sustain the public system with their taxes and then pay for private schooling with their after-tax dollars.

Once the parents have a free choice of schools for their children, once they have the ability to punish failing schools by removing their children from these schools and sending them to others, once the principals and the teachers' unions which try to use children as guinea pigs in some long-disproved social experiments, see their schools going out of business due to a mass exodus of students - the schools will have no choice but to deliver a better quality education. There will be a lot less unemployable graduates and the parents too will be much better off financially.

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Forced Euthanasia Of Pastor Joshua Averted

At least for now:
After meetings yesteday with our legal counsel, several doctors and a lawyer from the Christian Legal Fellowship, a major breakthrough happened today. The court appointed Substitute Decision Maker (SDM) has given permission for a nurse, who is a member of the Church, to feed Joshua orally.

Today Joshua was fed orally and I was told it went very well.

We thank the SDM for this wise decision but we remain cautious. This is incredible news but we recognize that an opposite decision may be made at any time.
Pastor Joshua's case was also noticed by the media. Check out this Brampton Guardian article:
“Other than the fact that Joshua is cognitively disabled, he is otherwise healthy and could possibly live many years in this condition,” states Alex Schadenberg, executive director of EPC-Canada. “This is not a case when hydration and nutrition need to be withdrawn because he is actually dying and nearing death, but rather the decision appears to have been made to intentionally cause his death by withdrawing IV hydration and nutrition because he is unlikely to recover from his disability.”

“Society cannot condone intentionally dehydrating a person to death because of their disability or the potential cost of long-term care,” he said.

Hospital officials have refrained from offering up specific details on the matter, stating patient confidentially limits them on what they can disclose publicly.
However, William Osler Health System, which runs Brampton Civic Hospital stressed everyone “involved in the patient’s care is in agreement with his treatment plan.”
Everyone involved is in agreement? What about the guy who almost got starved and dehydrated to death? I doubt he would agree to that kind of treatment. And how come one's right to live his life to the natural death no longer has precedence? Let alone - one's right to receive treatment at a hospital without being starved or dehydrated to death.

Friday, August 27, 2010

On Ideology And Mediocrity In Government Schools

Even if this research about the role of the government schools in destroying Christianity sounds to you like some crazy conspiracy theory - there's no doubt about the tendency of public schools to encourage mediocrity, quashing individuality and success.
Tim Bloedow weighs in on public schools, giving some examples of their approach to students that do better than others and - giving a brief overview of the typical outcome of such "education", including the growing number of young adults who don't really act as ones. (As someone who deals closely with my workplace's attendance records, who's witnessed some co-workers not only skipping work without prior notice, but asking their parents to talk to a supervisor on their behalf, I can confirm that the phenomenon is widespread.)

In conclusion - check out this essay on whether the state even has the right to regulate the education of our children. It explains, how all the regulations turn out to be about control and showing who is the boss, rather than about merely setting the academic standards.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

40 Days For Life Is Gaining Ground

With 238 locations (9 of them in Canada,) the upcoming vigil is already a record-setter.
WASHINGTON, Aug. 25 /Christian Newswire/ -- "This fall, an unprecedented number of people of faith will be turning to a higher power to bring an end to the tragedy of abortion through a 40-day program of prayer and fasting, peaceful vigil and community outreach," said Shawn Carney, campaign director of 40 Days for Life.

40 Days for Life is preparing for its largest campaign to date with 238 sites in six countries participating in simultaneous campaigns from September 22 - October 31. The list of locations is posted at: http://40daysforlife.com/location.cfm.

The list includes 223 locations in 46 American states and the District of Columbia. With nine locations in six provinces, this campaign will also mark the largest Canadian participation as well. There are also communities taking part in 40 Days for Life in Australia, Denmark, Northern Ireland, and -- for the first time -- England.
Here in New Brunswick, pro-lifers from all across the province are working hard to make sure there are enough volunteers to get the Moncton vigil going. Groups from Fredericton, Saint John and Miramichi have offered their help.
Six abortion centers where 40 Days for Life prayer vigils have taken place have closed following these campaigns of prayer and fasting. In addition, 35 abortion industry employees have left their jobs at facilities where people prayed for an end to abortion during 40 Days for Life campaigns.
Hopefully, thanks to all our efforts and prayers, we too will see some changes for the better.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Separation Of Church And State — What It Really Means

Here's a position statement on the Christian Governance website, which explains why separation of church and state is different from the separation of religion from politics:
2. Separation of Church and State is a Biblical principle. God has established jurisdictional parameters for the operation of the Church and of the State, as well as for the Family. For example, church leaders should not be operating the civil courts and politicians should not be appointing church elders. This is jurisdictional integrity.

3. Separation of religion from politics is not possible. There is no such thing as moral neutrality, so all people come to politics with a religion or worldview. The honest question is always not WHETHER religion and politics but WHICH worldview and value system will impact politics.

4. If people, when they call for the separation of religion from politics, really mean the separation of Christianity from politics, they should have the integrity to say so. Most people today who call for the separation of religion from politics are not calling for the separation of Humanism or Islam from politics; rather it tends to be a rallying cry against the influence of Christianity on our politics.
You just can't separate beliefs from politics. Even if the Federal government gets constitutionally restricted to mere administrative role, with no authority to define the nation's culture and values and to endorse (let alone - fund) any kind of non-government organizations or special interest groups, even then we'll have pro-highway MPs versus pro-railway MPs, there will be those advocating for more infrastructure spending versus those campaigning for fiscal austerity... And all these views will be based on guess what - beliefs. Because we don't yet have a solid social, economic and managerial theory which is based strictly on logic and reason. You want Christianity out of politics? Ok, then how about getting environmentalism, humanism and Marxism out of politics?

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Mortal Sin & Your Immortal Soul. Progressives DON'T WATCH This Video!

You just won't like it! You'll find it sexist, misogynist, tyrannical, reactionary, obscurantist, anti-sex, anti-fun, anti-fashion etc. But for those who don't consider themselves to be mere smartened apes, for those who haven't rejected time-tested morals and values, choosing the trends and fads of a decadent and corrupt society instead, for those who haven't parted with reason, who can distinguish between right and wrong, this whole video is just straight truth and common sense.

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Brampton Hospital Imposes Euthanasia By Dehydration

That happens here, in Canada, in spite of the fact that the euthanasia bill has been defeated by the Parliament:
First: Joshua (48), who is not otherwise dying, is being dehydrated to death (euthanasia by omission). This is not a case when hydration and nutrition need to be withdrawn because he is actually dying and nearing death, but rather the decision appears to have been made to intentionally cause his death by withdrawing IV hydration and nutrition probably because he is unlikely to recover from his disability.

Joshua has otherwise stabilized and would likely live for many years in this condition. Society cannot condone intentionally dehydrating a person to death because of their disability or the potential cost of long-term care.
Second: It is deplorable that the Consent and Capacity Board in Ontario, the hospital and the lawyer for the hospital, who are all paid by the government and have nearly unlimited resources to pressure people to consent to their will, appeared to appoint a Substitute Decision Maker (SDM) to make decisions on behalf of Joshua, based on that persons willingness to agree to a non-treatment plan, even though there is no proof that the plan of non-treatment represented the values of the person.

The Consent and Capacity Board was established to ensure that consent to treatment is based on the prior wishes or values of a person, before that person became incapacitated to make decisions for themselves. The fact that Joshua did not write down his personal wishes or assign a person to make legal and health care decisions on his behalf in these circumstances, does not negate the fact based on his religious convictions it is unlikely that he would have agreed to death by dehydration.

To pressure a person to agree to intentionally dehydrate a person to death, (euthanasia by omission) based on the cost of continuing the legal battle to defend the values of a person, is unconstitutional and inconsistent with Ontario law.
The court first rejected Joshua's sister, Mallika Arumugan, as his (SDM) because they did not consider her capable of making medical decisions for Joshua, but she also did not agree to the demands of the hospital.
Brampton Civic hospital on August 17 withdrew all life-sustaining treatment and care, including fluids and food, based on the forced agreement between the hospital and the SDM.
Again, this is not a situation when someone is on life support, which the hospital wants to turn off. Here, the patient could survive without life support, but the hospital refuses to provide him with food and water, with the declared intention to cause his death. Could it be that they're running out of beds and wish to vacate his bed for someone else? Even if that is the case, that someone else too risks to become the one left to die without food and water simply because the hospital officials believe he's a goner.

Act now to stop this savage murder of an innocent man whose only "crime" is - being disabled.

Friday, August 20, 2010

Is A Child Ever Unwanted?

Everyone is wanted by someone
Here in New Brunswick, couples wishing to adopt a baby, have to spend years on waiting lists. Or - they have to go overseas and adopt a child there; the latter costs them thousands of dollars that they could otherwise put towards the baby's education, dental care and many other much needed yet costly things the baby might need... And, at the same time, each year we have about 1000 babies getting slaughtered before they get a chance to see daylight. And we have a bunch of pro-aborts demanding more "abortion access", as if 1000 slaughtered babies a year (400 of them - at government expense) were not enough...

Let's remember that while there are unwanted pregnancies, there are no unwanted babies. And if we're talking about choice - let's remember that there's also a humane choice, which is - adoption.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

CHP On "Refugee" Boats — What Is To Be Done?

A few simple and workable common sense solution to the refugee boat issue that no government is likely to dare to implement. If anything, the opposition parties won't even be willing to consider these options:
So what is to be done?
  • The Christian Heritage Party clearly supports the rule of law. We need to send a clear signal to human smugglers and those who partner with them that we will not tolerate the bringing of human cargo to our shore. A CHP government would arrest the captains of such ships and seize their proceeds and assets to send a message that this is not the way to enter Canada.

  • Any “refugees” (at any stage of process or review) discovered to have ties to the Tamil Tigers (or other organizations prohibited in Canada) will be sent back to their country of origin, regardless of consequence.

  • Canada needs to determine very quickly whether the claims of refugee status are legitimate or bogus. If they are not in imminent danger of reprisals and death in the last country they were in before boarding a boat for Canada, they MUST be returned to that country immediately. Lengthy hearings and investigations are wearisome, costly and create false hope for those in question. They also encourage others around the world to attempt immigration under the guise of a refugee claim.

  • Make clear to genuine refugees that they leave their political problems behind in their home countries. They should not use the freedom of our society to try to resolve past and future conflicts elsewhere. To do so risks their status in our country and society. Work through international agencies to promote an agreement on what constitutes human smuggling and the penalties attached to that.

  • Teach future citizens of Canada that freedom of religion is a value we hold dear but we will not tolerate setting up organizations which seek to support and foment foreign conflicts. Neither do we want them to promote other ideologies harmful to Canada. Their first loyalty should now be to Canada and all the values that it has traditionally stood for.
“Charity begins at home” runs the adage. Misguided compassion for those who recognize Canada as a land of opportunity and freedom must not cloud our judgment or impede our willingness to protect Canada’s citizens from lawbreakers and smugglers. We have borders and a responsibility to defend them. Immigrants who follow Canadian protocols are welcome to apply and legitimate refugees deserve our compassion. Those who violate our laws or use deception to gain access must be sent back.
That leaves only one question - how come we have the internazi-sozis of all stripes holding a majority in the Parliament, (even the governing Conservative party has more than enough of them disguised as "moderates",) while the only political party that proposes true common sense solutions can't even win 100,000 votes?

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Pro-Lifer Challenges The Abortion-Funding Tax Regime - And Wins

At least the government chose to stop prosecuting him. They decided to back down, arguing that David Little doesn't have much taxable income anyway, so it would be easier (and cheaper) to drop the case than let it go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Keith Ward, the federal prosecutor, said he decided to stay the charges so that federal funds could be used on more important issues. "It's for reasons of economy," he told the Daily Gleaner. "He was essentially going to run the same defence ... He can easily manipulate the system all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada level."

Ward also noted that Little has basically no taxable income.

Little, now a resident in Prince Edward Island, was convicted in 2007 by the New Brunswick provincial court, after Revenue Canada ordered him to file his 2000-2002 returns in 2003.
Representing himself, Little has argued that the Income Tax Act violates his freedom of conscience and religion by requiring him to fund a morally evil act.

He has been supported by Bishop Faber MacDonald, emeritus bishop for Saint John, who believes Little is justified in not paying his taxes as a conscientious objector to an unjust law.
So, while the government didn't recognize David's right to conscious objection, they made it obvious that they won't be too hard on those who refuse to file their tax return for that reason, especially if their taxable income is negligent. Which is great news for those who have the courage to openly take a stand against all levels of governments that use our tax dollars to fund abortions on demand.

P.S. Yes, I know, you can easily avoid paying income taxes by merely maxing out every possible tax credit. (And there are more than enough of them available so that anyone making up to $30,000 or so could easily reduce their taxes to 0.) And, obviously, because of the sales taxes, you just can't prevent your money from ending up in the government coffers, from which it goes towards anything the government chooses to subsidize - including abortions on demand. But for David, what matters is taking a stand against government policy to fund the wholesales slaughter of innocent unborn babies with taxpayers' money. He took the stand and won.

Monday, August 16, 2010

Concerns Over Migrant Ship - A "Mass Hysteria"?

Toronto Star article claims so. And they bring in experts to support this claim. Except that all their "experts" are somewhat... one sided, I would say:
The Star's experts are a crackpot Ryerson hack named Myer Siemiatycki who advocates the vote for non citizens ,Walid Khugali of Jew Baiter Central - The Canadian Arab Federation and Hadayt Nazami an alleged lawyer who has represented George Galloway and a deported Tamil Tiger supporter.

Money quote: “What people don’t understand is that it’s impossible for anyone with a questionable background to get into Canada. If they are not genuine refugees, they will go back. But we have to give them a chance.” Haydat Nazami.
So, a guy who wants non-citizens to be allowed to vote, a guy from an organization of Arabs with Canadian passports (very few of them are actually "Arab Canadians" as they claim to be) and a lawyer who tends to represent all sorts of militants and their supporters. Do the Star editors truly believe that their "expertise" could be credibly unbiased?

Finally, the alleged lawyer asserts that "nobody with a questionable background can get into Canada". If that was true, (and I wish it was,) then how did those 18, accused of bombing plot, get into Canada in the first place? Not to mention the Khadrs and all other radical jihadis who raise funds for terrorists and don't even bother to hide their hatred towards Canada...

But we shouldn't give in to a mass hysteria, should we?

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Ontario's Crown Accused of Abusing Legal System in Linda Gibbons Case

There's simply no other explanation:
According to Lewis, lawyers Daniel Santoro and Nicolas Rouleau told provincial court justice Mara Beth Greene that they believe the Crown has continued to prosecute Gibbons through the criminal courts to keep the 16-year-old injunction, which was issued by a civil court, from being challenged in civil court.

Santoro says he believes the Crown has charged Gibbons under the Criminal Code because they do not think they can justify the need to make the 'temporary' injunction permanent. “They have used the criminal process as a strategy to avoid an inquest on the civil side,” he said Tuesday, according to Lewis.
The judge replied that the allegation was “horrible,” and asked how they could justify it. “Because nothing has happened [in the civil court] in 16 years,” Santoro responded.
Spending some 19 months behind bars (and over 7 years in total) for a mere protest - that sounds more like Soviet Union. But, at least, Linda's case is starting to get some much needed media attention. So it's just a matter of time until the "temporary" injunction, which is being used as an excuse to persecute Linda, gets struck down. By charging Linda with mischief, obstruction of peace officer and anything else they can think of (except - violating the 1994 injunction,) the Crown merely tries to delay the inevitable.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Migrant Ship — Affront To Canadians, Insult To Law-Abiding Immigrants

Here are a few comments from the CBC website - it's great to see that not everybody here has parted with common sense when it comes to treating illegal migrants:
Hanna_PV wrote:

I hope Canada sends them away...it´s not fair to canadian citizen and legal immigrants..

for immigrants that want to live legally in Canada it´s like a punch in the stomach..all the waiting(sometimes takes more than 3 years), the money spent with english courses, french courses, the lack of social life to be able to save money, the 2/3 jobs to also be able to save money, being away from the family, thousands spent with the PR proccess, mean nothing,right?

And how about all the taxes canadian citizens have to pay to then see all of it going to free social services to illegal refugees.

Not fair at all!!!!
(Posted 2010/08/13 at 6:34 AM ET)
Well said. If anything - the whole refugee determination system is an insult to law-abiding immigrants who came here under the skilled worker class program. A professional who chooses to move to Canada has to go through some 3-5 years of paperwork before he's allowed to set foot on Canadian soil. But someone who doesn't qualify (yet still wishes to try to sneak through the back door,) can just get a plain ticket, claim to be a refugee - and right away he gets the right to stay in Canada and receive social assistance, while his case is being reviewed. These migrants on the ship obviously knew that even though they wouldn't be really welcome in Canada, nobody is going to send them back; at least - not for 2 years or so, until the last of their appeals gets declined.

Was there a way to prevent that ship from getting here? Yes, there was:
The Source wrote:

This ship must not be allowed to dock. Period. There is a pattern here and it has got to stop. Now! It has cost these people $45,000 each to get onto this ship. Who is getting paid? Confiscate the vessel. Charge the crew with trafficking in human cargo, charter a Hercules and return these people to where they came from so that they stand in line with everyone else who wants to come to this country.
(Posted 2010/08/11 at 2:30 PM ET)
Exactly! I wonder how come nobody in the government didn't think about it. (Or, if they did - how come they haven't legislated these measures yet?)

Would there be many captains willing to set sail for Canada, if they knew that they and their crew would be arrested upon arrival and spend the next few years in jail for trafficking illegal migrants? Would there be many ship owners agreeing to let their ship be used for human smuggling if they knew that the ship would be confiscated and sold to cover deportation expenses? And, without the transportation available - how long you think this kind of migrant trafficking would last?

If Vic Toews wants to take a hard stance on those migrant ship, he better read the comment and act accordingly. And, if the opposition parties once again try to water down the bill, (because they believe that migrants' interests should take precedence over the interests of the nation,) then the government should make it a confidence vote and see if the lefties have the guts to make this an election issue.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Demand Fiscal Sanity — Last Day

Pre-budget consultations started early this year. The Standing Committee on Finance is inviting Canadians to participate in its annual pre-budget consultation process. The 2010 consultations will result in a report to be tabled in the House of Commons in late fall 2010, and the suggestions by Canadians as well as the recommendations by the Committee will be considered by the Minister of Finance in the development of the 2011 federal budget.

The deadline for comments is tomorrow (August 13,) so act now. Suggestions can be e-mailed to FINA@parl.gc.ca. The limit is 5 pages - which should be more than enough to demand fiscal sanity. Especially, if some basic measures, such as zero-based budgeting, long-term moratorium on public service hiring and using the Bank of Canada to consolidate government debts and to provide low-interest loans for infrastructure projects, - all these could be explained in just a few sentences.

Check out the recommendations, recently submitted by Christian Governance. Some of their suggestions, such as flat tax, as a first step towards abolishing all taxes on income, investments and savings, can only be implemented on a long run. But others, such as ending government handouts to NGOs and political parties, making the government less intrusive and restructuring the tax credits so that charitable gifts treated more favorably than political donations - these could be achieved right away. Even if the Conservatives can't get it all in a minority Parliament - making just a few steps in the right directions could save families hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

When They Say "With Dignity"...

That doesn't necessarily mean they have any respect to your dignity as a person:
Is it just me or does anyone else worry when liberals talk about doing something "with dignity."

Firstly, it's always bad. Liberals say "allow him to die with dignity" or "resign with dignity." See. Always bad. You see, in liberal world, "with dignity" is code. It means "get out of the way because you're no longer useful to me."
Meanwhile, Quebec National Assembly has established a Select Committee on euthanasia. The fact that they refer to it as a committee on "dying with dignity" (instead of choosing a more honest name) makes it quite clear what side they're on. So make sure you fill their questionnaire and express your opinion on making intentional actions which deliberately terminate person's life legal. Quebec's anti-euthanasia group is called Living With Dignity. At least here you can be sure that when they say "dignity" - they actually mean it.

P.S. The questionnaire is not restricted to Quebec residents; if you don't live in Quebec, just download the questionnaire, print it and mail it to:
Anik Laplante
Commission spéciale sur la question de "mourir dans la dignité"

Édifice Pamphile-Le May
1035, rue des Parlementaires
3e étage, Bureau 3.15
Québec QC  G1A 1A3
Phone: 418-643-2722
Fax: 418-643-0248

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

So Why Did They Even Bother To Immigrate?...

In Canada and Britain, jihad is advancing. Not so good news reported by the American Thinker:
A June 2010 report entitled "Sharia Law in Britain: A Threat to One Law for All and Equal Rights" begins with Secretary General of the Islamic Sharia Council Suhaib Hasan saying, "If Sharia law is implemented, then you can turn this country [Great Britain] into a haven of peace because once a thief's hand is cut off nobody is going to steal.
So why did they even bother to immigrate? Why didn't they just stay in their home countries where "sharia" law is already the law of the land? And, if they miss their beloved "sharia" so much - why don't they just go back? Or - why didn't they immigrate to a "sharia" law country in the first place?

Finally, if they achieve their goal and ruin the Western world - who is going to pay them social assistance? Who is going to provide foreign aid to their home countries? And where else could they go once the life in the West, overrun by the jihadis, becomes as unbearable as it was in these "sharia"-impoverished hellholes they've left behind?

It's time to remind everyone (especially Muslim immigrants as well as homegrown useful idiots) that it wasn't "sharia", which made Canada, Britain and other Western countries free, prosperous, democratic and attractive to immigrants from all over the world. And, by the way, it wasn't "multiculturalism" either. So, if the US lets go of Khadr - don't "repatriate" him to Canada. Let Pakistan and Saudi Arabia worry about him.

Monday, August 9, 2010

Leftie Activists Don't Want To Let Go Of Your Tax Dollar

We usually complain that Harper's government lets too many wasteful spending items slip through the cracks. The lefties however are furious that they can no longer suck on the taxpayer's tit:
In their view, unless leftist advocacy is funded by the federal government, with billions of tax dollars, there are no other legitimate voices in Canada, no valuable opinions exist beyond theirs, and democracy is under serious threat. On the contrary, an end to preferential funding for left-wing ideologies, such as feminism and “social justice”, will expose Canadians to more representative public discourse.

The Left Mobilizes

Liberal MP caucus members, Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre) and Ken Dryden (York Centre), have organized a series of forums on Parliament Hill, where liberal left groups can “tell their stories” about their powerlessness and fears, as a result of government funding cuts. Michael Ignatieff called government cuts the “chilling of NGOs” and compared the situation in Canada to Cuba and Bulgaria. Ken Dryden claimed that it is “unhealthy and undemocratic” for governments to refuse funding to groups which disagree with government policy.
Heh... They should have read the Conservative forums and see how many nasty special interest groups still get the lion share of their budget from the state coffers. Oh, well... I guess we just can't expect a minority government to defund them all. Still, bringing in zero-based budgeting, even as a pilot project in the non-essential departments, could help the government get rid of the remaining wasteful spending without being accused of censoring the opponents. Let it be up to the NGOs to explain what they need the money for and why it should come from the government and not from individual contributors.

Sunday, August 8, 2010

Canadians With Newborn Ordered Off Ward To 'Respect' Muslim Woman's Beliefs

And then they were billed $750 for the "extra convenience".
John Kennedy said he and another man were also forbidden from using the sink in the shared bathroom to dampen cloths so they could clean their babies.

He and his wife and the other couple were moved out of the room on religious grounds that were made clear to him by medical staff on the floor, who said unrelated men are forbidden from being in the room while the Muslim woman was breastfeeding.

Kennedy's wife had an emergency C-section on Nov. 15 and was barely able to move, let alone care for their newborn, as a result of the surgery.

The couple were moved into a private room, where Kennedy could use the sink but the couple were later billed $250 a day by the hospital for the upgrade.
Notice the word "upgrade". That's how the Kingston Whig Standard sees the whole story. The article itself is titled "Expensive upgrade" - as if it was the couple who chose to move to a private room and tried to avoid paying the bill later. But in reality, the couple was asked to move to accommodate another woman's beliefs - which ended up costing them $750. So shouldn't the title read "Expensive accommodation"? Or how about "Expensive humiliation"? Because, a situation in which Canadians, in their home country, are no longer allowed to use maternity wards, bathrooms and other facilities if those are used by Muslims - is nothing but.

Still, judging from the comments, vast majority of the readers didn't fall for the misleading title. They said it plain and clear - political correctness has gone way too far; the bill should have been sent to the Muslim woman instead; if she is the one inconvenienced by the presence of "infidels", she was supposed to upgrade to a private room - at her own expense. And then there's one Jenny B, Canada's model dhimmi who came up with the following rebuttal:
This shouldn't be a religious debate. The issue isn't religion, it's that the hospital made a mistake. Multi-culturalism IS our Canadian culture, and I am proud of that. Would anyone really have a problem with this if the hospital hadn't billed the Kennedy's? Of course not. So let's calm down, stop saying ignorant and hateful things about religious beliefs, and focus on the real issue at hand. Two people have been unfairly billed, and they have every reason to be upset. KGH should be ashamed of the way this has been handled.
Too bad the comments on the story are closed, so I can't explain Jenny B. that multi-cult was merely an item in the Liberal Party policy book some 40 years ago; that, even if it's been enshrined in law and adopted by all other major parties - that still doesn't make it a Canadian value. After all, Canada had been doing perfectly fine without multi-cult for over 100 years and the policy change in the 1960s certainly didn't come out of necessity.

Neither am I able to ask what makes Jenny B. so sure that "of course", nobody would "really have a problem" if the hospital hadn't billed the Kennedys. Judging from the tone of her message, she implies that the extra expenses should have been paid for by the hospital. And who funds the hospitals, may I ask? Santa? Of course, $750 is a drop in the bucket compared to overall costs of multicultural immigration, which amount to over $18 billion a year. But that's hardly a reason to "calm down". Rather, it's an opportunity to re-ignite the debate on the real issue at hand. Which is the costly and socially-destructive policy of so called "multiculturalism".

Friday, August 6, 2010

Preventing Discrimination Or Social Engineering?

Jim Hnatiuk, the leader of the Christian Heritage Party weighs in on so called "affirmative actions":
Preventing or eliminating discrimination is one thing; "correcting conditions of disadvantage" — which implies giving advantage where there was once disadvantage—is quite another thing. It is social engineering.

In 1986, the federal government wanted to alleviate the historic discriminatory practices against four "employment equity groups." In 2010, they realized that not only has the Act not achieved its intended goal, but that reverse discrimination has resulted. The recent example of Sara Landriault, of Kemptville, Ontario—who was told she could not continue an online job application to Citizenship and Immigration Canada after answering she was white in response to a question about her race—exposes the serious flaws inherent in this Act.

All men/women are created equal, and should have equal opportunities in all areas—not only of employment, but in life. Government social engineering of some segments of society to give preferential status to some and not to others flies in the face of the concept that we all have inalienable rights.

We already have laws in place to prevent discrimination. If someone feels that law has been broken, they should turn to the law for redress. But they cannot ask that their government discriminate against someone else, to redress one wrong with another wrong. As the old saying goes, "Two wrongs do not make a right."
That's right. Usually, two wrongs make a left :)

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Polls: No Quebec Consensus On Abortion; Most Canadians Unaware Of The Status-Quo

In spite of the pro-abortion motion, which was recently passed by their National Assembly, there's no consensus on abortion in Quebec:
QUEBEC, August 4, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new abortion poll seems to belie the supposed “consensus” of Quebeckers in favor of state-funded abortion-on-demand, suggesting that much of the populace considers the debate far from closed.

A nationwide Angus Reid poll released Tuesday found that 38% of Quebec respondents agreed that a debate on abortion is long overdue. That figure was the highest of all the provinces, with Alberta coming in at 33%. Meanwhile, nearly half (49%) of Quebeckers said that they do not want the debate, which was the lowest percentage among the provinces, tied with Alberta.

Additionally, the poll revealed a plurality of opinion on the public funding of abortions. While 49 per cent of Quebeckers thought all abortions should be funded, 38 per cent said they should be funded only in “medical emergencies” and 9 percent said they should not be funded at all.

Nationwide, the poll found that only 21 percent of Canadians are aware that the country currently lacks any legal restrictions on abortion. When informed, 67 percent do not support that status quo.
Yes only 21% of Canadians know that Canada has no abortion law whatsoever. The common perception is that abortions are only allowed during the first trimester and some believe that even then a woman might need some sort of doctor's note to be legally permitted to abort her baby. No wonder the pro-aborts fight tooth and nail to block the debate on abortion. The more people are aware of what the status quo on abortion truly is, the less supporters they'll have.

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Pill To 11-Year-Olds WITHOUT Their Parents Knowing?!

Now, this is just plain outrageous. How come there is apparently no law that would at least require them to notify the parents?!
The number of pre-teenage girls on the Pill has increased fivefold in the past decade, shocking figures reveal.

Last year doctors prescribed the oral contraceptive to more than 1,000 girls aged 11 and 12, usually without their parents' knowledge.

Professor Steve Field, chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, said the rise in contraception among young girls reflected 'improved sex education' and access to doctors rather than a rise in sexual activity.
What kind of education is this, that none of those girls was aware of the side effects? And what kind of "doctors" would prescribe pills that suppress body's natural functions to girls whose bodies haven't even developed to that stage?! Haven't those "doctors" learned anything from their past mistakes? Aren't there enough young girls in their 20s who complain about their health (and about what this chemical trash has done to it) more than any 80 year-old would? What shameless perverted scumbag would want to go even younger?!

Monday, August 2, 2010

National Post on Linda Gibbons, Canada's Prisoner Of Conscience

The National Post came up with a detailed (and quite a balanced) report on Linda Gibbons and her struggle against a "temporary" (16 year-old) injunction which prohibit peaceful prayer and sidewalk counseling on public property outside abortion facilities. The author, Charles Lewis, outlines all the facts and opinions, leaving it to us to decide whether one woman's 16-year protest is a case of harassment or free speech:
One of Canada’s longest-serving anti-abortion protesters no longer thinks of being locked up as anything out of the ordinary.

Since Aug. 30, 1994, when a temporary injunction was placed around several abortion clinics in downtown Toronto at the request of the provincial Attorney-General, Ms. Gibbons has been arrested roughly 20 times and has been behind bars eight of the past 16 years — more time than Karla Homolka.

She served an earlier six-month stint for a protest in front of a Morgentaler clinic in 1992.

Her most recent stint behind bars began in January 2009. Instead of standing back the required distance from a clinic as her fellow protesters had done for years, she once again walked within the forbidden bubble zone.

She held up a sign that showed a drawing of a baby that read: “Why Mom, when I have so much life to give?”
The National Post also researches the history of the "temporary" injunction which is used as an excuse to keep Linda and other devoted pro-lifers behind bars. The officials claim that this is supposed to protect abortion providers from violence; their major excuse is apparently the arson attack on one of the abortion mills back in 1992. Well, judge for yourself, whether such threat justifies banning peaceful prayers and sidewalk counseling; and - whether banning picketing has ever been efficient in stopping those who come with a clear intention to damage the place.

If Canada as we know it survives this Trudeaupean social experiment, if it remains a nation founded upon Christian values in spite of all the "progressives" and "multi-culties" out there, Linda Gibbons will be known as the Rosa Parks of the pro-life movement.

Sunday, August 1, 2010

Mary Wagner, Pro-Life Heroine From Nanaimo, Released From Prison

She's been set free, acquitted of mischief charges. But Mary still had to spend 4 months behind bars for merely trying to witness to clients of a Toronto abortion mill. Once again we see that the police actually has no legal grounds to prosecute pro-lifers who approach women outside abortion facilities. And again we see that the process is the punishment.

No matter how unsustainable the "bubble zone" regulations are, they are used as an excuse to detain pro-lifers, which are then offered a choice - to give up street counseling or to stay behind bars until the charges against them are quashed. Both Mary and Linda chose not to give in, even if it meant staying in jail for months without trial.
Four months ago Wagner pleaded not guilty when charged this time with mischief.

What she had done was to stand in the third floor hallway of an office building in Toronto, outside the door of the Choice in Health abortion clinic, and try to engage clinic customers on their way in or out.

“I was standing in a public place, the hallway of a public building, and the judge ruled on Wednesday that it is not mischief to engage people in dialogue,” she said.
After charging her, police offered to release her if she would sign a promise to stay away from the Choice in Health abortuary. The judge repeated the offer, but she declined both.

“How could I promise to not defend my own brothers and sisters who are defenseless?” she asked.

In jail she briefly met with fellow pro-life activist Linda Gibbons. “We only met for a few moments — I think they were deliberately keeping us separated — but it was a moment of great joy,” she said.
Apparently, for Ontario police and prison guards, "to serve and protect" means to serve the abortion industry, protecting them from devoted courageous people, who'd rather suffer the injustice themselves than turn a blind eye to an injustice done to unborn babies.