Sunday, July 31, 2011

The Norway Massacre And Europe's War On Free Speech

The recent calls from the left-wing opportunists to ban Conservative bloggers quoted by the killer, are just the tip of the iceberg:
Media outlets in Europe and the United States are accusing Western critics of Islam and multiculturalism of complicity in the mass killing of more than 70 people in Norway. The attempt to exploit this crime for political gain is not just a case of malicious opportunism. It also represents the latest and most unsavoury salvo in the long-running war on free speech in Europe.

Anders Behring Breivik, a deranged Norwegian accused of bombing government buildings in Oslo and then killing scores of young people during a 90-minute shooting rampage on a nearby camping island called Utoya, published a 1,500-page manifesto in which he vents his anger at the direction in which mostly leftwing elites in Norway and elsewhere in Europe are leading his country and the continent as a whole.

As it turns out, parts of the manifesto include cut-and-pasted blog posts from European and American analysts and writers who for years have been educating the general public about the destructive effects of multiculturalism and runaway Muslim immigration. By dint of duplicitous logic, these analysts and writers are now the victims of a smear campaign: multiculturalists are accusing them of inciting Breivik to murder.

These same analysts have, of course, been a constant bane on an unaccountable European elite determined to foist its post-modern, post-nationalist and post-Christian multicultural agenda on a sceptical European citizenry.

Unwilling to countenance opposition, these self-appointed guardians of European political correctness have laboured to silence public discussion about issues such as the rise of Islam in Europe and/or the failure of millions of Muslim immigrants to integrate into European society.
Facts contradict their theories? Too bad for the facts! It's not the leftist theories that keep failing, it's the Conservative bloggers who point to these failures that "incite hatred".

Saturday, July 30, 2011

4000 Families Threaten To Leave Government-Run Schools

Finally, the parents are uniting to take back their children's education:
TORONTO, Ontario, July 29, 2011 ( – The Coptic Orthodox Churches in Toronto are threatening to withdraw 4,000 families from the Toronto Catholic District School Board if it does not amend its controversial equity policy to protect Catholic teaching in the schools. According to one expert in Ontario education, if the threat were carried out, the board could lose upwards of $40,000,000 in annual public funding, and over 150 teachers.

If the board implements its policy, wrote Fr. Jeremiah Attaalla on June 22nd, “we will not hesitate to withdraw our children at once from attending any Catholic school within Toronto or [the Greater Toronto Area].”
Hopefully the parents hold their ground and follow through with their threats should the board refuse to back down from their perverse social engineering.

It will sure be a challenge to the parents, since many of them will have to take time off work to homeschool their children or to volunteer at community-run schools. It will be a challenge to the community and to the churches, that will most likely need to pass the collection plate (and maybe - not just once,) to help ease the financial burden on those families, that, obviously, will receive no compensation from the government...

But it's an important step. The parents must finally make it clear that it's the school board for the children and their parents and not the other way around. If the school board refuses to listen to the parents and to start teaching the values that the parents want (and not that some bureaucrats find "progressive") - they should be shown that parents can actually do very well without the school boards and all those other bureaucrats that leach on the taxpayer-funded education system.

And another thing:
Well, since our Catholic bishops who permitted this atrocity aren’t defending Catholic moral teaching and citing the Catechism like this Orthodox priest is, we can at least thank our brethren in the Orthodox faith to do it.

Why aren’t the Catholic bishops of this province defending the Catholic schools against the homosexualist assault?
Unfortunately our bishops haven’t figured this salient truth out yet: just because you don’t rock the boat with McGuinty doesn’t mean there’s not going to be fallout. There will be and the first victim of that fallout is something called credibility…. something they don’t have anymore.
What he said.

Friday, July 29, 2011

Free Speech, Hate Speech And The Anti-"Homophobia" Gang

Telling the truth about homosexual lifestyle choice or even - disagreeing with the way they "celebrate human rights" can get one into serious trouble:
Purewal, who ran and lost in the last federal election, uses the handle @shinderpurewal. The full tweet said: “Vancouver’s so-called ‘Pride Parade’ should be banned. It is vulgar…to say the least! #cdnpoli.”

He later tried to clarify online with another tweet: “My concern is obscene sexuality at display in the parade.”
Vancouver-West End MLA Spencer Chandra Herbert, who has fought against homophobia in schools, called the comments “upsetting.”

“Why does he think it’s vulgar to celebrate human rights? Is that what he teaches in his political science classes? What if someone in his class was coming out,” said Herbert.
“It’s a free country. People can say what they think but I don’t think he has freedom to promote hatred.”
So, disagreeing with vulgar display of one's sexual preferences is "hate speech"? Not really, since the law has specific exemptions for the cases when the controversial speech actually states the truth. So hate speech laws won't apply here. Even if they file a "human rights" complaint against the professor to one of those freedom-snatching commissions (where it's not the truth that matters, but one's hurt feelings) and get the him convicted - that conviction will be overturned by the court.

Meanwhile, it turns out that some of those staunch opponents of "hate speech" (by which they mean any criticism of their lifestyle choice, including reiterating known facts,) don't mind resorting to real hate speech themselves:
( – Dan Savage hates bullying. Make that some bullying. Admirably, Savage hates it when gay teens get bullied. Less admirably, Savage doesn’t hesitate to bully, smear and malign those who disagree with him.

Savage, a gay sex columnist, has never been shy about expressing his hatred for social conservatives. In his latest attack, appearing on HBO’s “Real Time” with Bill Maher July 15, Savage wished Republicans were “all f**king dead” and admitted that he has contemplated how he’d like to “f**k the s**t out of [conservative presidential candidate] Rick Santorum.”
But apparently, it's only "hate speech" when it's used to criticize them. When they wish their opponents were dead - it's merely a backlash for the years of implied "discrimination". And then, we all know, whose "rights" should prevail, don't we?

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Islamic Extremists Set Up Sharia Zones In British Cities

With all the attention turned to the mass-murder in Norway, which, as the mainstream media claims, was motivated by "islamophobia" and hate-mongering, the real hate mongers don't waste their time:
Islamic extremists have launched a poster campaign across the UK proclaiming areas where Sharia law enforcement zones have been set up.

Communities have been bombarded with the posters, which read: ‘You are entering a Sharia-controlled zone – Islamic rules enforced.’

The bright yellow messages daubed on bus stops and street lamps have already been seen across certain boroughs in London and order that in the ‘zone’ there should be ‘no gambling’, ‘no music or concerts’, ‘no porn or prostitution’, ‘no drugs or smoking’ and ‘no alcohol’.

Hate preacher Anjem Choudary has claimed responsibility for the scheme, saying he plans to flood specific Muslim and non-Muslim communities around the UK and ‘put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term’.
The campaign comes just months after stickers proclaiming a ‘gay-free zone’ and appearing to reference the religious Islamic text of the Koran appeared in Tower Hamlets.

Women in parts of East London including Tower Hamlets have been threatened with violence and even death by Islamic extremists if they did not wear headscarves.
If these savages like their "sharia" regime so much, why don't they just go back to the countries they came from? And then - how come the police only goes as far as removing the posters, but fails to realize that if a man who has been admitted as a refugee from a barbaric "sharia" regime wants to force the very same "sharia" regime on the nation that let him find refuge in their land, then this is nothing less than an immigration fraud?

Yes, the guy mentioned in the article is apparently a convert, but he's not the only one out there dreaming about turning prosperous European nations into "sharia" wastelands. It's about time the Western civilization starts resisting these attempts to conquer and destroy it from within.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Debunking 6 Myths About Breivik

Was he truly a Conservative? Pro-Israel? Inspired by the anti-jihad bloggers? See for yourself:
2. Anders Behring Breivik Hated Muslims

Breivik viewed Muslims as the enemy, but only domestically. He emphasized that; "Knights Templar do not intend to persecute devout Muslims"

And he contemplated collaborating with them on terrorist attacks against Europe. "An alliance with the Jihadists might prove beneficial to both parties... We both share one common goal." The Caliphate was a useful enemy for his cause.

In Breivik's own words, this is how such an arrangement would play out;
"They are asked to provide a biological compound manufactured by Muslim scientists in the Middle East. Hamas and several Jihadi groups have labs and they have the potential to provide such substances. Their problem is finding suitable martyrs who can pass “screenings” in Western Europe. This is where we come in. We will smuggle it in to the EU and distribute it at a target of our choosing. We must give them assurances that we are not to harm any Muslims etc."
Ask yourself is these are the words of a anti-Jihadist who was fighting against Islam. Or a delusional European terrorist who was willing to ally with Jihadist against his fellow Europeans.

Breivik spells out that he is willing to kill Europeans on behalf of just about anyone...
If only we could look forward for those who wish to tar all conservatives with the Oslo murders to acknowledge the truth and stop clinging to their myths. Oh well, at least we know that these are just that - myths. And we're able to debunk these myths in a debate.

Monday, July 25, 2011

Why Do They Keep Calling Norwegian Mass Murderer A "Christian Fundamentalist"?

A Freemason, who associates himself with the Knights Templar (not to be confused with the Knights of Columbus,) a "man of logic" (as this nutcase describes himself,) who admits that he is not religious, who hasn't been to church since he was a teenager, who supports eugenic abortions and for whom Jesus is merely a cultural symbol - how could he be a Christian fundamentalist?
The idea that right-wing extremists such as Pierce, McVeigh and Breivik are simply the Christian version of Osama bin Laden is entirely wrong, in other words. Islamist terrorists take (misguided) inspiration from their religious texts in the act of slaughter — explicitly linking their motivation to religion. Mass murdering terrorists with a Christian background (and this includes the IRA, incidentally) typically do no such thing, even if the religious-inspired themes of martyrdom and purification tend to animate their doctrines. Not that this makes mass murder any less hideous or destructive — but it does show it to be a different kind of animal.
And, as Suzanne rightfully noted, you don't see Christians dancing on the streets, cheering the brutal slaughter of "non-believers" or "apostates". If anything, there is a widespread condemnation of this despicable murder - unequivocally; without trying to justify this atrocity by mentioning poverty, social justice, liberation struggle or any other excuse of that kind. But that's not enough for the mainstream media, whose reaction could be described as nothing less than a "blood libel":
Among those that were quick to label the Norwegian mass murderer a "Christian fundamentalist" was the CBC. The very same organization that would never use "Muslim" and "terrorist" in the same sentence, (even when the nature of the violence is self-evident,) keeps repeating "Christian fundamentalist" and "Christian terrorist" over and over. For them, he is a chance to smear legitimate Conservatives by cherry-picking from his 1500-page rant to suit their purpose.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Abortion Industry: "What We Do Here Is End A Life... There Is No Disputing This Fact."

A former abortion clinic worker breaks her silence and speaks out for life:
Everyone wanted me to get an abortion… except me.
Two days later, on January 6, 1989, at 9 1/2 weeks gestation, I had an abortion. It nearly killed me. No, not the surgical procedure, the psychological aftermath. I attempted suicide three times after my abortion and finally ended up in an adolescent psychiatric ward of a community hospital for a month to recover.

I was coerced into having an abortion and thought that by becoming a counselor at an abortion clinic, I could help others like me really talk out their feelings on the issue, truly explore their options, and help them make an honest, informed decision–or help them leave an abusive situation.
Working in the autoclave room was never, ever easy. I saw my lost child in every jar of aborted baby parts. One night after working autoclave my nightmares about dead babies were so gruesome and terrifying and intense I met with the clinic’s director to talk about my feelings.

She was very understanding, open and honest, and painfully forthright when she told me, “What we do here is end a life. Pure and simple. There is no disputing this fact. You need to be OK with this to work here.” After a few days rotated out of the autoclave room, I felt I was OK with this, and God help me, I went back.
They may admit it among themselves, but most of them still don't want others to see the truth. I heard about an incident that took place in Fredericton a couple weeks ago: One of those volunteers at the abortion mill, who escort women from their cars straight to the facility doors, making sure they don't waste any time talking to the sidewalk counselors, became so upset about a pro-life sign picturing an 8-week unborn baby, that she kept placing herself in front of the lady who was holding it, so that the sign wouldn't be visible from the sidewalk. Obviously, not every abortion mill worker (or volunteer) has the courage to admit that abortion is there to end a life.

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Norway Shooting - Not So Obvious

While the lack of the murderer's political and religious affiliation in the Norwegian version of his Facebook page is apparently explained by the difference between the basic profile and a more detailed version, available to authenticated subscribers, it looks like the page itself was set up just 4 days before the shooting.
“The facebook page was created 4 days ago on 18 july. He does not have any friends on the page. This is a fake! The media just repeats the informations of the page, which claims that he was a conservative, nationalist, freemason, but this seems very unlikely. The page cannot be considered trustworthy!” added by
And, of course there's still a question why did a jihad group take credit for the atrocities, and then retract?

Then it turns out that the mass murderer wasn't alone:
Police say they are investigating whether the attacks were the work of one man or whether others helped.
Local media report that police are investigating claims by witnesses that a second person was involved, apparently not disguised in a police uniform.
So what happened to that other guy then? How come one of the shooters surrenders to the authorities, alive and well, with a smoking gun machine, and a 4-day-old Facebook page that, along with a 1500-page anti-jihad manifesto, identifies him as a proverbial right-wing extremist, while the other man involved in the massacre disappears and very few news releases mention that he even existed.

And another thing: the news outlets keep mentioning 85 or so people killed in the shooting. But what about the wounded? There must be at least some that were injured, yet survived the massacre. So how come their number is not mentioned? Is it 85 killed and wounded or is it 85 killed and then there should be some 100 if not 200 others wounded - which then would raise questions how come a gunman (or even two of them) could cause so much damage... Things don't add up here, that's for sure.

P.S. (Specifically for those who like putting words in their opponents' mouths.) NO, I'm NOT justifying this despicable mass murder. No matter, who the murderers are, they and their accomplices should be put on trial for what they did and receive the harshest penalty that Norway's criminal code allows.

But, before you suggest that Conservative Christians are somehow "collectively responsible" (or "morally responsible) for this massacre, before you claim that "violence comes from both sides" or even that "both sides are equally responsible", before you argue that "guns should be banned" or that "hate crime" laws are not the tool of political censorship, but a "highly necessary measure to prevent violence from right-wing extremists," you have to address these questions first. Because, so far, the answers given by the mainstream media aren't so obvious.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Elected Senate - Why Can't We Have A Constitutional Amendment After All?

Really, with 72% support, why can't we? I can understand why Harper wanted to circumvent the need for a constitutional amendment back when he had a minority government. But now, once he finally have a majority - why would he want to settle for half-measures?

And, if we look at bill C-7, it contains nothing but half-measures. Even when it comes to the term limits - the 9-year limit was chosen, so that it would be more than 2 full Parliamentary terms; so that a 2-term Prime Minister doesn't get to reappoint every single Senator for those provinces that choose to pass on the opportunity to hold Senate elections. As for the proposed model, which basically replicates the Alberta framework for the Senate nominee elections, it's great as a short-term solution, but it's still just that - a short-term solution. For a permanent solution, there are much better options than irregular general ticket elections, using provincial political affiliation to elect Federal Senate nominees whose appointment could be up to 6 years in the future...

So the Conservatives better not be afraid of going for a full-scale constitutional amendment. First of all because, as we've seen in the past five years, no matter whether or not the proposal actually requires constitutional changes, the Liberals will challenge it anyway. Well if they want a constitutional amendment so badly - why can't Harper let them have one? Especially now, when the Conservatives finally have a majority, which not only gives them all the votes they need, but also all the time they need (through the duration of this Parliament of course) to pass the Senate reform bill. Not to mention that when over 70% of Canadians believe that the future of the Senate should be decided in a nationwide referendum - that too, must be respected.

And another thing - a constitutional amendment and a nationwide referendum will allow Canada to address other questions related to the Senate reform. The question on the "second E" - whether or not there should be equal number of Senators for each province, could be placed on the same ballot. Along with the question whether or not the term of the current Senators should end as soon as the next election is called.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

"New Canadians" Or Merely Canadian Passport Holders?

We know that for many of them, their Canadian citizenship is nothing but a passport of convenience, which offers visa-free travel and ensures safe evacuation in case something goes wrong in their home country. But some can't even wait the 3 years, which is the residence requirement for Canadian citizenship:
OTTAWA -- Most of the 1,800 people the feds believe obtained their citizenship fraudulently are Canadians of convenience who don't even live here, according to Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.
"Most of these people, we believe, have never really lived in Canada and are still overseas," he said Wednesday. "We frankly have got them dead to rights with the proof that we have, and I don't think a lot of these people want to go through a long, protracted public court battle where it's clear they fraudulently obtained our citizenship."

Immigration officials said the suspects, through the use of crooked consultants who charge thousands of dollars, use fake names or addresses to circumvent the three years required to become a citizen.
Well, at least now the government is finally cracking down on these fake citizens. (All previous governments must have known about the widespread immigration fraud, but preferred to turn a blind eye, to avoid touching such a controversial issue.) And this appears to be just the tip of the iceberg. If anything, as James Bissett, the former director of the Canadian Immigration service suggests, it's surprising that there were just 1800 of them caught.

According to Sun News Network, Canada has only ever revoked 67 citizenships since Confederation. That apparently doesn't include all those who lost their Canadian citizenship between 1947 and 1977 for merely accepting citizenship of another country.

And, if we're at it, it's about time we revoke Canadian citizenship from yet another fake "Canadian", the one who fought alongside the enemy against Canadian troops. It's about time Canada, as a nation, makes it clear that tolerance has its limits and that Canadian citizenship means a little more than mere passport of convenience.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

...As Long As It's Not "Blatantly Christian"

Here are some more reflections on the "mosqueteria" scandal. It's interesting to go through some of the comments in defense of the Muslim prayers in public schools. While some argue that these girls simply don't mind being kept apart from the rest of their schoolmates (including girls,) others claim this is about freedom of religion:
Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of religion while the Ontario Human Rights Code specifies the duty to accommodate. There is no “undue hardship” in allowing Muslim students to participate in their Friday prayers on school property.
Religious services were banned under the Education Act because, at the time, it was common for schools to begin the day with the Lord’s Prayer. This blatantly Christian ritual was forced on all students regardless of faith.

The amended Education Act put a stop to mandatory prayers. However, I am not aware of it ever being used to stop devout Christians from saying grace before lunch.

Mallick, like the Tarek Fatah she quotes, believes government should tell people how to practice their religion. Fortunately, Canada is a free society where people are allowed to follow their own beliefs within the limits set by our laws. It would be criminal to see this overturned to selectively target Muslim youth.H/t Scaramouche
It's interesting how he supports the exclusion of a "blatantly Christian" ritual from public schools but justifies holding a Muslim prayer service (a blatantly Muslim one, if we use his own words,) which he compares to merely saying grace.

Could it be that he doesn't notice the difference between whispering a quick prayer before meal or even - stepping into an empty room to kneel in prayer (the kind of accommodation I witnessed at CDI college in Ottawa) and gathering the children in the cafeteria for a full-scale Muslim Friday prayer, for which a Muslim cleric is brought into the school? If some other group of students chose to use the same cafeteria to recite the Lord's prayer (let alone - bringing in a priest to deliver a Christian sermon) - would he support it? What do you think?

G.Dale claims that the Lord's prayer was forced on all students regardless of faith and that's why, he suggests, it was banned from public schools. The truth is - there were exemptions available for the non-Christian students, except that the civil liberties groups and later the courts didn't find them sufficient. They argued that it's not so easy to go against the crowd, that it's too intimidating for a student to remain seated when everybody around gets up to recite the prayer. Remaining seated, staying in the classroom when, out of some 30 students, all but 5 or 6 get up and go to the "mosqueteria" for the Muslim Friday prayer service is no less intimidating. (Not to mention that those who attend the prayers get to skip classes, which is another incentive for those remaining to join them.)

So it wasn't really about forcing a "blatantly Christian" ritual on all students regardless of faith. The dispute was about whether or not an important part of Canada's Christian heritage still had a place in the public schools. In the end it was decided that inclusiveness and multiculturalism (let alone separation of the Church and state) prevail. But somehow, those same principles that were used not just to ban the Lord's prayer but to cleanse public schools from any reference to Christianity, don't apply when the religion that is being practiced (and actively promoted) on the public school grounds, happens to be Islam. Somehow, neither the official secularization of public schools, nor the concerns of those students who might feel excluded for not participating, matter in this case. If this is not double standards then I don't know what is.

Monday, July 18, 2011

Mosque In A Public School - Where Are The Civil Liberties Groups?

Ezra Levant discusses some troubling questions about the mosqueteria with the UofT professor and a constitutional lawyer, Ed Morgan:
There are some interesting details of which not everyone has been aware. I didn't know that the ill-famous Muslim prayers in the cafeteria take place during class hours (not during breaks,) and that the school actually has to exempt those wishing to attend from their classes. Another thing: the "imam" that leads these prayers is absolutely independent from the school. Neither the school, nor the Toronto District School Board have any information about his background and none of them bother (or dare) to ask questions about what exactly is going to be preached to the students. Isn't that a little too much "reasonable accommodation" of Muslim students?

And, of course, there's always a questions - where are the civil liberties groups? What happened to the principle of not allowing religious instruction in public schools? What about the the peer pressure and the concerns about the non-participating kids being singled out? How come all those who were so concerned about these issues back then, during the debate over the Lord's prayer, are silent now? And how come none of them notices that apart from the typical peer pressure (with about 80% participation, any voluntary opt-in turns into a de-facto opt-out,) there's also an actual incentive for those attending the Muslim prayers, since they are excused from their classes?..

I'm sure that if the story was about public school students being offered a choice between staying in the classroom and attending a Christian prayer and a sermon, every civil liberties group would immediately identify this if not as an attempt to practically convert the students of other faiths, then at least as some sort of missionary work that shouldn't be allowed in a non-sectarian public school. And yet, when the Hindu parents dared to complain about the improvised mosque in the school cafeteria - somehow, the very same civil liberties advocates were in ho hurry to support them...

Saturday, July 16, 2011

Videos: Discussing Graphic Images

Brian Lilley interviews Alissa Golob on Byline, discussing the use of graphic images as a way to show the truth about abortion:

Obviously I don't agree with Brian's analogy, that if you're ok with graphic images, you shouldn't oppose sexually explicit images or public nudity. These are certainly not the same thing and I doubt it would be so difficult to notice the difference between just showing graphic images for the fun of it and raising awareness of the harmful consequences of one's choice. Alissa brought a few great examples to explain just that.

Most of the controversy is not about these images being "gross". It's about personal involvement, about being reminded that there could be bitter consequences to "having fun", about being called to sacrifice personal convenience to do what's right and let the baby live... Of course, there are many out there unwilling to accept that message.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Why Can't We Have Lawmakers Like That?

Just a few quotes from the abortion debate that took place in the lower house of Poland’s parliament:
MP (Mr) Wojciech Kossakowski, Law and Justice party:
‘I cannot understand what motivates parliamentarians and all others who agree to the modern day slaughter of the innocents. In 2009 over 500 children were killed in Polish hospitals. How monstrously egotistical, devoid of the smallest drop of humanity, you have to be to agree to murder under the auspices of law. It’s not about belonging to any party, religion or anything else. It’s about being human.
MP (Mr) Jan Dziedziczak, Law and Justice party:
‘A disabled voter approached me to support this initiative. He argued that the current law considers the disabled and people conceived in rape as second category citizens. How else can we treat the disabled and the people conceived in rape living around us, if we think that at some stage in their life, they can be killed if this is more comfortable? Such laws discriminate against the disabled and discriminate against those conceived in rape. We have to change that as soon as possible.’
MP (Mr) Bolesław Piecha (former health minister, abortion-performing doctor turned pro-lifer; Law and Justice Party):
‘Arguing for the sanctity of human life is very difficult, especially since some parliamentarians on the left side of this Chamber hold views close to those of professor Peter Singer, a well-known utilitarian, who claims that a child can be killed up to 28 days after birth without consequences.’
‘There is a philosopher in Europe, a recognized guru of the mainstream, progressive part of society, Mr. Jurgen Habermas. He says that there is something like the sanctity of life, and that human life is a good, or a value, which is not subject to any regulations - it is an ungovernable value, it is not subject to anybody’s choice for or against, whether to abort, or not. A well-known bioethics professor Dworkin, very far from Catholic views himself, also thinks that human life is sacred and should be protected.’
Notice that they talk about 500 children a year dying from abortions. Here in Canada - it's about 100,000 a year being slaughtered before they get a chance to see daylight, because of the legal vacuum that Canada has on abortion. And yet we still can't look forward for a civilized fetal rights debate in the Parliament - in spite of the Conservative majority.

When are we finally going to follow Poland's path to common sense?

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Multiculturalism Fails Everyone - Including Muslims

Vox populi on the "mosquofeteria" in a Toronto Public school. (H/t Marginalized Action Dinosaur.)
Some comments are quite controversial: "we're going to have to recognize an invasion for what it is", "we are frogs being boiled alive" and even "I just want them out of my country"... (Oh, that's going to earn the radio station a "human rights" complaint...) At the end there's a great comment about social engineering that strips Canada of its heritage... I can't believe a radio show like that actually went on the air. Looks like the people are really getting tired of all that multicultural utopia.

Even when it comes to the comments from the other side (yes, there are some too,) the message is clear that there is a serious problem with Canada's multiculturalism policy in its current form. A Muslim man who spoke in defense of the improvised mosque in the public school, suggested that it's all about being persistent: "They asked for it and they were given it, you can't blame us for asking...", he kept reiterating, insisting that, instead of blaming others for standing up for their rights, Christians should blame themselves for forfeiting theirs: "You don't ask for your own rights, that's the problem"...

And yes, that is the problem - we've got used to the status quo so much, that we take this exclusion of our culture and our Christian heritage for granted. We know that there's no chance a court or a human rights commission would ever uphold our rights and our freedoms; that, if anything, it will be us being forced to make even more concessions for the sake of "reasonable" accommodation of various special interest groups... We know this, and we've got used to it. Too bad Lowell Green failed to acknowledge that problem, choosing instead to argue that prayers in public schools is nobody's right, "because the court said so back in the '80s". (Which resulted in nothing but him losing patience with the caller.)

Another commenter suggested that we shouldn't blame Muslim immigrants; that it's not them who bring these radical views to Canada, but their children who turn to the radical Islam "in search of identity". Again, these few words point to a serious problem - that Canada's multiculturalism fails to present any identity worthy of adopting not just to the newcomers, but also to their children - including those that were actually born in Canada. That stripping Canadians of their identity, culture and heritage in an attempt to accommodate every minority group there is, left nothing but a spiritual void, compelling younger generation to seek identity in their parents' home countries. In other words - that multiculturalism ended up failing everyone - including the very people it was supposed to accommodate.

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Another Union Campaigns Against Fiscal Sanity

As if halting the mail for two weeks wasn't enough:
Get ready for some more labour unrest in Canada.

Canada's largest public sector union, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, is vowing to initiate a major offensive against any plans to radically reduce its membership.

President John Gordon says his union, which represents about 172,000 federal employees, won't start a general strike but will be actively be campaigning against the Tories and any potential job cuts.
In lieu of striking, it's launched a more "strategic" initiative which includes public relations drive with an email blitz to Harper and treasury board president Tony Clement.

In the coming months, the union will also organize its members to engage workers in their communities by calling attention to potential service cuts.
Somehow they seem to overlook the fact that it was Harper's government that added some 33000 public sector jobs in the last 5 years, so even if 1 in 8 public service employees is let go - that will merely bring the number of bureaucrats back to where it used to be before Harper - without any noticeable impact on services.

And if the unions do proceed with the campaigns they plan - hopefully that will encourage the government to introduce some amendments to the labor code. Especially the one that allows workers to decide for themselves whether or not they want to be members of a union. Those unsatisfied with the major union, should be allowed to opt-out or to form a union of their own, if they wish so. That will not only lessen the influence of those Marxist functionaries that pretend to act on behalf of everyone who happens to hold a specific job, but also to uphold our freedom of conscience and freedom of association.

Monday, July 11, 2011

Finally - Canada Says NO To The UN

Finally, Canada is saying NO to the disreputable club that ridicules the very values it was meant to uphold. Obviously, this should have been done long ago, when representatives of the world's notorious dictatorships, blasted Canada for allegedly neglecting human rights from the tribune of the UN human rights commission; when the very same bunch of self-centered bureaucrats appointed Iran (a country where women are subjected to corporal punishment, not to mention stoning,) to its women's rights committee. But appointing North Korea, world's most heavily militarized Communist war-mongering regime, the chair of the UN disarmament conference, was apparently the last straw:
Canada plans to boycott the United Nations conference on disarmament to protest North Korea's selection as conference chair, CTV News has learned.
Officials say Baird and the Conservative government are dismayed that the UN chose North Korea, which is building nuclear weapons and has threatened South Korea with military action.

One senior government official described North Korea's chairmanship of the disarmament conference as "absurd," saying it undermines the UN commitment to demilitarize the world.
It's about time. Finally we have a government that puts Canada's interests first, that has a common sense vision for Canada's role in the world and that doesn't accept any nonsense that comes from the UN as an indisputable dogma.

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Pre-Budget Consultations - Time For Some Spending Cuts

As the government is conducting pre-budget consultations, we better remind them that it's time to reign in public spending:
During the recent election, the Conservatives pledged to be more fiscally conservative by promising to balance the budget a year earlier, 2014-15 instead of 2015-16. Extra budget savings would be generated by the government’s Strategic and Operating Review, a one-year review of program spending — excluding transfers to individuals and governments — that was designed to “realize substantial additional savings through greater efficiency and effectiveness.” (Emphasis added.)

From 2012-13 to 2014-15, the government plans to find $7-billion in efficiencies, including $1-billion in 2012-13, $2-billion in 2013-14 and $4-billion in 2014-15. While the government claims these savings are “substantial,” they amount to a mere 2% in savings from the $352.5-billion in departmental spending planned from 2012-13 to 2014-15. The Conservatives also promised an extra $4.6-billion in new spending during the election, which wipes out most of the savings.

With a significant deficit and no credible plan to balance the budget, this is not the time for marginal belt-tightening. Canada needs real and substantial spending reductions that either significantly cut programs or eliminate them entirely.

To decide which programs to cut and/or eliminate, the Conservatives should look back to the 1990s at the then-Liberal government’s review of program spending. The Liberals balanced the budget in part by cutting transfers to provinces and they also made substantial reductions to departmental spending.
And there's absolutely no excuse for the government to keep throwing money around, subsidizing talentless artists, special interest groups and NGOs.
Of the 10 boats of the flotilla currently stuck in Greek waters, one of them is Canadian: The Tahrir, or Liberty in English, if you prefer.

More than $300,000 had to be raised to sail this ship. The Montreal-based NGO Alternatives Internationales supported the project by “providing its administrative and financial management skills.”

In other words, they were the main bagman of the whole fundraising effort. In their ads to convince Quebecers and Canadians to donate, they brag about their official partnership with the Canadian International Development Agency. In fact, over the last few years, Alternatives has received more than $5 million from the federal government. For 2010-2011, they got $769,828 as a “Partner for Democratic Governance” from CIDA.

It’s all very surprising considering Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird recently discouraged Canadians from participating in the flotilla, describing it as “provocative and, ultimately, unhelpful to the people of Gaza.” Unfortunately, the minister seems to have as little success convincing the Israelophobe activists as he has with his own bureaucrats who keep funding an organization that is more preoccupied with promoting its radical leftist ideology than truly bringing humanitarian or democratic aid.
To that there's a great solution called zero-based budgeting. And, actually, the government did make a few steps in that direction, by announcing that one-time grants shouldn't be regarded as permanent "base" funding. Still, it's time to fully adopt zero-based budgeting, at least in the non-essential departments, so that, instead of the government having to justify its decision to reduce funding, the onus would be on the departments to explain what the money is for.

Saturday, July 9, 2011

Liberal Thought Police - They Believe That They Alone Occupy The Moral High Ground

This essay discusses the situation in the UK, but almost everything that's mentioned there (except for the EU-specific issues,) is also true about Canada.
For the terrible fact is that, until now, such a debate has been impossible because the Left-wing intelligentsia has ruthlessly shut it down.

This is true of a wide range of issues — such as immigration, multiculturalism, man-made global warming, equality and anti-discrimination laws, overseas aid and many more — on which only one viewpoint is permitted.

This has created a hidden iceberg of issues where the views of the people are not only ignored, but scorned as extreme or bigoted — and those who express them are accordingly deemed to be beyond the pale.

The results have been chilling. The equality agenda has deprived people with traditionalist religious views of the freedom to live according to their precepts.

Worse still, adherents of the ‘one view’ agenda lose their ability to tell right from wrong and truth from lies — and so end up justifying their own wrongdoing as a moral act.
The point about the Left-wingers who police and thus control our public debate is this: they believe above all else that they alone occupy the moral high ground.

They thus divide the world into good and bad. Only their own view is to be permitted; any dissent is by definition evil.

So all dissenters are Right-wing, all Right-wingers are evil and all who oppose the liberal consensus are therefore evil Right-wingers who must be damned as beyond the pale.
One result is that language itself has been hijacked. Words such as ‘rights’, ‘justice’, ‘tolerance’, ‘liberal’ and ‘centre ground’ have come to mean their precise opposite.

And argument has been replaced by gratuitous abuse and insults, such as ‘institutionally racist’, ‘homophobic’, ‘fundamentalist’, ‘extremist’ or ‘mad’.
Of course, this absurdity can't last. In the last few years we've seen some positive trends that challenge the left-wing intelligentsia and its monopoly on public opinion. The tide is turning. Hopefully, now, when Sun News Network has arrived, when the real Conservative point of view has reached the air waves (rather than being confined to mere blogs and online columns,) we can look forward for even more noticeable changes.

Thursday, July 7, 2011

"An Autopsy Revealed That The Patient Had Died From Autopsy"

No, that's not merely a "dark humor" joke anymore, that's something that almost happened in Quebec where a woman was pronounced "brain dead" and was about to be harvested for organs. If it wasn't for her miraculous recovery - apparently nobody would bother to verify that she was really dead:
The 76-year-old woman was hospitalized at the Hospital Sainte Croix de Drummondville for an inflammation of the gums, which required a brief operation. During her recovery, hospital staff gave the elderly woman solid food, which she had been unable to consume in her family home for some time, and left her unattended. Choking on the food, she fell into a coma, after unsuccessful resuscitation.

Medical staff contacted her family, explaining to them that their mother was “brain dead,” with no hope of recovery. Citing Gauron’s eyes as particularly viable, the doctors asked if the family would agree to organ donation.

While supporting the possibility of donation, her shocked family first demanded further medical tests to prove Gauron was really dead.

The next day, the family was astonished to learn that Gauron had awakened. Shortly afterwards, she sat up in bed and ate yogurt.

“If we had decided to donate her organs, they would have killed her,” said her son.
A wrong diagnosis can always be lethal, but in these cases, even if the patients theoretically have the right to appeal, to question the decision that declares the patient a writeoff, they may simply have no time to do so, as doctors have the unilateral right to make the decision to withdraw medical treatment, which then results in the death of the person. The court case, discussed in the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition newsletter is yet another example of how few rights family members have in this life or death dispute.

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Accommodation For Muslims But Not For Catholics

This is the new reality in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario. Catholic schools have no choice but to accept clubs that promote perverse lifestyle choices and at the same time, a regular, officially secular (or at least - non-sectarian) public school holds Muslim Friday prayers.
The school is 80%-90% Muslim, and parents wanted their children to be able to attend Friday prayers. Rather than have the majority of the student body troop off to the nearest mosque, disrupting classes and creating headaches, the principal agreed with parents to let them use the cafeteria.
Ok, but what about the schools that are if not 100% Catholic then, at least, were established so that Catholic parents could have their taxes directed towards Catholic education for their children? How come those are no longer entitled even to the basic level of accommodation that is guaranteed by the constitutional agreements?

And another interesting thought on the subject:
But then consider this. When a Surrey man made headlines by asking to have a Bible study at his son's public school, after school hours, without participation by staff, the blogosphere erupted with demands to keep our schools secular.

I trust they will be similarly up in arms about Friday prayers.
You wish! The only ones to complain were the Hindus, who have some concerns of their own about Muslim prayers. But don't expect much of an outcry from our home-grown Christophobic secularists. Somehow it seems that Muslim prayers don't inconvenience them at all. Apparently, they see is as a triumph of multiculturalism, rather than as a violation of the sacred principle of "separation of the Church and state".

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

"Dr" Morgentaler - Not Really An M.D.?

Here's a rather intriguing comment posted to one of the CHP press releases. Apparently, Canada's chief butcher, known everywhere as "doctor" Morgentaler is not really a doctor:
Since Henry Morgentaler arrived in Canada in February of 1950 and obtained his medical diploma at University of Montreal in 1953 one can easily calculate that in best case scenario Henry Morgentaler did three years of medical studies before he got his medical diploma. If we assume that Morgentaler started his studies at U of M in 1951, one year after his arrival in Canada, (more realistic scenario) that we could easily conclude that he has only two years of medical studies to his name, that is less training than it takes to become a butcher, see:

Canadian authorities must have known about this for quite a long time and people in charge of protecting Canadian public from fraudsters disguised as medical doctors not only did nothing to strip Morgentaler of his medical diploma and mdical licence but they also helped him to legitimise his grisly trade.
If this is even remotely true, his credential are as deceitful as his cause. Hopefully this message gets noticed not just by the CHP, but also by some of the sitting MPs, especially those who form the pro-life caucus. Let them ask a few questions about Canada's chief abortionist's dubious credentials. And they better not forget to take a closer look at that dirty deal which got that butcher named for the nation's highest civilian honor, in spite of numerous violations of the protocol.

Monday, July 4, 2011

Ann Coulter Speaks Out

She wasn't allowed to speak at Ottawa University, but she gets the chance to answer questions on ByLine with Brian Lilley:

And, her interview with Ezra Levant. I think it's worth reposting:

Truth is hate for those that hate the truth. The leftist mob does everything they can to silence her, but they can't silence common sense.

Saturday, July 2, 2011

Supporters Of Tax-Funded "Arts" vs Free Speech

So far their censorship attempt achieved just the opposite. According to the Sun News Network, the fuss over the Margie Gillis interview has apparently resulted in Krista Erickson tripling her audience:
In fact, unlike Doyle and Mallick, Erickson was ineffably polite and respectful of Margie Gillis as a person and a performer. True, there was a lot of disputing and talking over one another - one can look up the Erickson interview on YouTube as I did - but Gillis didn't back down.

When Erickson gave Gillis her "moment in the sun" to defend the grants and subsidies, Gillis went into what many of us regard as bafflegab -

working for "the common good ... human spirit ... resolving conflicts ... experimental transformation ... discovering nuances ... more people dancing and looking further ... reconciliation of conflicts ... ideas that improve the quality of our lives ... minds growing in plasticity" and so on.

Krista acknowledged that she was something of a "Philistine" who didn't "get interpretive dancing and highfalutin concepts like plasticity of the mind, and the hunter-gatherer mind exploration thing."

Personally, I tend to agree with Erickson. If, as Gillis says, the average dancer gets $12,000 a year and needs public financing to survive, it basically means that taxpayers are subsidizing a hobby. If the public is unwilling to pay to see performers, perhaps the performers should be in some other line of work?
But that's where the entitlement culture comes into play. Those "artists", most of whom have become nothing but whiny grant appliers, apparently believe that taxpayers are supposed to just give them the money and be quiet about it. So when someone dares to question their entitlements - they respond with thousands of complaints with the clear intent not only to silence the outspoken interviewer but to have the dissenting TV station shut down.

Friday, July 1, 2011

Happy Canada Day!

Happy Canada Day and a hearty welcome to the royal newlyweds!
It may be a campaign video, but the values and ideas expressed there don't end on election day. Honor. Fidelity. Loyalty. Courage. Respect for the rule of law. And, of course - Liberty. As we celebrate 144th anniversary of our great Dominion, let's celebrate our freedom, our heritage and our values that make Canada great.
Happy Dominion Day everyone!