Why leftist ideology will NEVER solve our social problems

It's rather ironic that this post is going up today of all days, the day of Jack Layton's funeral in Toronto. But someone left a comment here on the blog today, once again fundamentally misunderstanding my views on helping the less fortunate in our society, and once again calling into question my faith for being a "Conservative".

Anyway, I responded with pretty much what I'm about to say, but then thought that with what's going on today, I'd post it for my general readership too. (plus, it's been a while since I last posted anything of substance, so I figured it's time to stir the pot again)

For all of you out there, my long time readers, long time haters, and those of who who've just stumbled across the blog for the very first time... Did you know that I acutally SUPPORT INCREASING welfare benefits? And did you know that I STRONGLY SUPPORT a strong social saftey net? And I do so based on my firm convictions as a CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVE... as I'm a Christian FIRST, and a Conservative SECOND. And the two, despite what many on the left would have you think, are NOT mutually exclusive.

Where I fundamentally disagree with those who are on the left, like the late Jack Layton for example, is they way that most folks on the left envision the solution to these problems. Most of them (and I recognize that I'm making some significant and non-encompassing generalizations, I know) believe that by simply throwing more money at the issues, we'll be able to solve these significant and long-term issues. A large number of them also incorrectly believe that the way to get this money is to over-tax hard working people, thereby "leveling the playing field" as it were.

Personally, I think this is a REPREHENSIBLE philosophy, and only ENCOURAGES more of the same behaviours that are the root cause of SOME (but obviously not all) of the problems we face. In essence, it's a a fundamentally Communist perspective... take away from those who have, in order to give to those who don't. The problem with that perspective is that there are many of those who don't "have", who in fact COULD "HAVE", if they weren't repeatedly making bad choices.

For example, I've worked in front line healthcare, working daily with folks who are on social assistance. Of course, many of them VERY legitimately, who have conditions that prevent them from being able to provide for themselves. (see related ASIDE below) It's really sad to see the generational welfare families, who've figured out how to "work the system", and have taught their children how to do the same... kids who have now grown up with a "sense of entitlement", and have no desire nor inclination whatsoever to get themselves off the system. They look to the state for EVERYTHING, and blame all their problems on society in general, rather than looking to themselves and learning the benefits of hard work to improve their own lives. It's a desperately sad and vicious cycle, one that will be IMPOSSIBLE to break if we just keep throwing more money into the system.

(RELATED ASIDE: I remember one guy who really WANTED to provide for himself but just couldn't... was in a wheelchair, and had numourous conditions that prevented him from holding a job, because his body wouldn't co-operate with any kind of consistant schedule. So what did he do? When he was in good health, he'd spend a lot of time doing voluntary work, like sorting at the local Food Bank, and in general just trying to give back to the society that was supporting him. Had a GREAT attitude, and didn't convey any sense that he felt "entitled" to Government assistance. Now THAT's someone who more than deserves our support!)

So, I've come to the conclusion, as have many other Conservatives, that it's ONLY when we revamp the entire system, and get the "freeloaders" off the system, that we'll then have more money available to actually increase benefits to those who are genuinely in need. You see, I'm focused on the ROOT CAUSES of the problems we see, not the SYMPTOMS... but I percieve that most folks on the left are focused on the symptoms, not the solutions. Of course, most of them will turn around and say that the REAL root cause of our problems is the dreaded evil of "capitalism"... at which point I just roll my eyes, once again.

You see, I wouldn't call myself a "capitalist"... we just live in a capitalist society. AS HAS MOST OF THE WORLD SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME. You know, the general principal of "If a man shall not work, he shall not eat." Which, interestingly enough, is a Biblical principal too.

Now of course if a man CANNOT work, then OBVIOUSLY we need to support him or her in our society. For the record, I want to HELP solve these issues, to "Do unto others as I'd have them do unto you", as the Lord Jesus taught us. But I have a fundamentally different perspective from those on the left as to HOW we need to go about solving them.

That doesn't make me an evil person... it makes me a "Christian Conservative". I'm just someone who wants to see the lives of ALL his fellow countrymen improved, without having to pay too much in taxes, of course.

Ibbitson: A Primary system for Liberal Leadership?

John Ibbitson put forward a radical idea today for renewing the Liberal Party in his Globe & Mail article... how about opening up the Liberal Leadership process to an open and national primary system? And you know what? I honestly think that's a GREAT idea!

Most of my readers will know, of course, that I'm a card-carrying Tory, and that I'm committed to the DESTRUCTION of the Liberal Party of Canada... IN IT'S PRESENT INCARNATION, that is. Fundamentally, on a vast majority of the issues, I actually fall more to the left side of the Conservative Party... other than key SoCon issues of course, but I'm actually a lot more "Red Tory" than most people realize. (for example, most long-time readers will recall that I'm not a big fan of "small government"... I'm more a fan of "SMALLER Government", but do think that the Government should indeed be in charge of more sectors than my Libertarian friends do...)

All that being said, I do believe that Canada needs a true "centrist" option, but one that's NOT powerful enough to be able to form a Government on it's own. I think having a smaller rump of a party, say 20-40 seats, that could be a governing partner on either side of the political spectrum, would be a healthy thing for Canada. The problem is that the current LPC doesn't really care about the issues, they care only about POWER... and as such, spends more time trying to score political points with issues, instead of articulating an actual VISION that keeps the Party consistent. (one of the reasons I hate the current LPC so much is that they have the political consistency of JELLO... wobbly, slippery, and impossible to nail to a wall) So an idea that will force the LPC to actually define a more consistent VISION, even one that changes with the changing of it's leadership, (instead of changing on an issue by issue, week to week basis) could be beneficial to Canadians. (And it might help to end the trend of mindless peons who simply vote Liberal because their families have ALWAYS voted Liberal, because people would actually have to start THINKING before they vote for their "default" family option...)

This idea might actually lead to a true "centrist" Canadian party, instead of a leftist/statist conglomerate of special interest groups that Canadian voters soundly rejected in the last election. Imagine... average voters, who want to have a say but don't want to pay a membership or join a Party, being able to pick the "vision" from a field of candidates that most closely aligns to their own. It would result in LESS power for the special interest groups that currently hold the Liberal Party hostage, and create a more "Canadian" centrist party than currently exists. Because you see, right now the Libs think that only what they deem as "Canadian values" are the only values that are legitimate... this would end that notion, because real CANADIANS, and not special interest groups, would be telling the LPC what "Canadian" values really are.

As a result of that, their platform would be RADICALLY different than their most recent offerings. It would be a more realistic reflection on what Canadians are actually thinking, and not what the various LPC Grand Poobahs try to LECTURE Canadians on how they should think. (by the way... how's that strategy working for you guys these days?) Hey, if the regular Joe Canadian was able to have a say like that, they may even come up with a vision that I'd be willing to vote for! (Of course, I'm talking about when Harper retires after his FOURTH CONSECUTIVE MAJORITY MANDATE!

Of course, you all know why I like Harper so much... clearly RIGHT, but pragmatically so, and as such able to make decisions for the good of the WHOLE COUNRTY, not being held captive to the influence of one or two special interest groups. He lines up with my vision of the country perfectly... someone who's clearly "conservative", but can govern a nation filled with people of ALL political stripes. Yea, I'm hoping he sticks around for a few terms.

But back to the Liberal Party... I actually voted for them in 1997. NOT for the LPC of course, but for my LOCAL candidate. I'd met him a number of times, and he more closely aligned with my vision and values than the "used car salesman" that the Reform had put forward, or the "dead man walking" that the PC's had put forward. (plus there was that whole "get your act together before I vote for you guys" attitiue that I had for both parties on the right back in those days...)

So personally, I'm a fan of Ibbitson's idea. Just imagine with me for a few moments... various candidates with truly differing visions, travelling around the country from province to province, with different provinces voting on different days, weeks apart like in the US primaries. Have two "divisions" of provinces, with the smaller ones slated to go first, and the three most populous ones later in the process, to ensure that the Big Three don't get to decide who the leading candidates are before the rest of the country has had their say. Instead of having set dates within each division, have a randomly assigned order every cycle, so that you don't get a PEI or New Brunswick always going first, and thus avoiding a perpetually and overly important New Hampshire or Iowa primary. This would also ensure that no one of the Big Three gets to set the agenda for the other two, which would certainly NOT be helpful to national unity.

By having such a process in place, and allowing ANY Canadian to have their say, it would not only renew the Liberal Party, but it would have a profound impact on the other parties as well... the Conservative Party would thereby define themselves with a truly "RIGHT" vision, and the NDP would more likely define themselves with a truly "LEFT" vision. Once the votes are cast in the General Election, Canadians will have more clearly indicated where they want the country to go, and opening up the potential for true coalition governments that would likely more accurately reflect the political will of the people.

For the record, it would actually be NICE to have a real CHOICE when it comes to voting... because right now, I don't have much choice at all. If I don't want to vote Conservative, I don't have an option... there's no way I'd give the NDP the keys to 24 Sussex (though I do think you're a nice guy and all Jack...) and I know the current Liberal Party would simply continue their pattern of social destruction that started way back in 1968. (fortunately, I've got it easy these days, with Harper in charge... cause I actually WANT him to be leading the country. As for the next leader? Who knows... a Mike Harris or Bernard Lord sure, but a Kim Campbell, a Jean Charest, or maybe a Libertarian? Not a chance!)

And I'm being serious here guys... this isn't some nefarious post, secretly wishing that they take my advice and completely destroy themselves... this is an honest evaluation of the idea. It's an idea that I'd very likely partake in... and if I don't like the result of the Leadership contest, I've still got the Conservatives as an option! But I think such an idea would offer real CHOICE to Canadian voters, and would allow for an open, honest, and regularly renewed Liberal Party of Canada. Which is, if I'm correct, what they're aiming for this time around. Well, at least that's what many Liberal voters are hoping for... but as for the current crop of Party insiders, I'm not holding my breath.

Canadian Government Funding Blasphemy

UPDATE: The band and the record label have voluntarily withdrawn the album, and have returned the taxpayer funding for the project. They're intending to re-release the album in a non-taxpayer funded format... as is their right. It's still a piece of blasphemy, but now I simply pray for their souls. :END UPDATE


In a word, DISGUSTING... the Canadian Government has (perhaps unwittingly, I'll grant that) provided over $14,000 to fund a punk album that openly mocks Islam, running the risk of riots from coast to coast.

Oh, did I say "Islam"? I meant "Christianity". (now watch how fast the Left goes from righteous anger to excusing religious intolerance... in 3, 2, 1...)

So, now that it's open season for Government funding on faith, does that mean someone can now apply for funding from the Government of Canada to openly mock Islam's "prophet" Muhammad? I think we all know the answer to that... ABSOLUTELY NOT, and that's EXACTLY how it ought to be. Free speech is one thing, but TAXPAYER FUNDING for things that openly mock the faith of others IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE, regardless of who's faith is under attack.

There is only ONE acceptable answer to this... the funding needs to be revoked and/or immediately repaid to the Government, and the bureaucrat who authorized this expenditure MUST BE CLEARLY DEALT WITH, with a clear and public apology for his/her insensitive and idiotic decision. A clear message needs to be sent... RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE IS UNACCEPTABLE IN ANY FORM WHATSOEVER WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT OF THIS NATION. And if they refuse to apologize... FIRE THEM.

AND... I fully expect ALL PARTY SUPPORT FOR THIS. Your first chance to do the right thing, Mr. Opposition Leader.

"Working Families" launch attack ads: Obviously Unions don't need any more money!

Once again, a third party Liberal front group is taking the dirty attack shots at the Opposition, seeking to mitigate any flack that the Ontario Liberals might get were they to run these ads themselves.

We're all familiar with the expression, "It takes a VILLAGE to raise a child". But they seem to misunderstand that statement, thinking that it actually means, "It takes a UNION to raise a child".

Well, my thought is that obviously, there should be no problem with implementing a full scale public sector wage freeze after the next election... BECAUSE THE UNIONS OBVIOUSLY HAVE MORE MONEY THAN THEY KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH!!!

At a time where business are struggling, and scraping by trying to avoid laying people off, what do we see the unions doing? Blowing wads of cash, all in an effort to keep the guys who are giving them a sweet deal in power. Ever wonder why McGuinty only implemented a NON-UNION Public Sector wage freeze? THIS IS WHY... to keep the fat cat union leaders on side.

Once again, we have McGuinty and his MPP's refusing to actually govern, refusing reign in the exponentially growing demands of their union cronies, in a reprehensible and desperate bid to stay in power. That's right, they're spendingYOUR MONEY, in an effort to keep THEIR FRIENDS happy.

But Ontarians get it this time... they're getting SICK of these whining unions demanding more and more money, at a time when many families are facing layoffs, wage freezes, and even wage rollbacks. Ontarians get that we're STILL in the midst of an economic crisis, and that we simply CANNOT afford to give in to the unions demands anymore... a truth that the unions simply don't want to, or simply can't, comprehend.

In 1995, Ontarians understood this... and they ushered in "The Common Sense Revolution" to deal with the union caused economic crisis we faced. Thanks to the "Working Families Coalition", they're only setting the stage for Ontarians to cry out for some more "Common Sense" to come to the rescue at Queen's Park.

VIVA LA COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION!!!

Downtown Toronto gives the ROC the finger

Take a good look at the electoral map for Toronto's election, and tell me what it looks like to you...

Yup... once again, Downtown Toronto gives everyone else the finger.

Toronto Star publishes false story, but are we even surprised anymore?

Today, the Toronto Star (aka - The Red Star) got caught red handed publishing a completely false story about adding strippers and escort jobs on Canada's Job Bank listings.

I'm not normally one for posting the "Talking Points", but I got a copy of these forwarded to me, and figured I'd post them as is for your consumption:

Toronto Star story completely false

A story in today's Toronto Star, under the byline ‘Richard J. Brennan’ states our government is changing the policy on what careers will be posted on the federal government’s Job Bank website. The story makes the completely false claim that “the Conservative government wants to help unemployed Canadians find careers as strippers and for-hire escorts.”

This story is completely and utterly false. In fact, the “draft note” cited by the reporter has not been seen by Minister Finley’s office, nor would it ever have been a policy under consideration by our government.

Even more shocking, despite citing several reactions from opposition and stakeholders in the erroneous story, the reporter did not even call Minister Finley’s office for a response.

If he had, he would have learned that there is absolutely no basis in fact to claim this is government policy.

It is the height of irresponsible journalism to accuse the government of changing a policy without contacting the government itself for confirmation or comment.

It is sad that Canadians are subjected to such a lack of journalistic integrity, and that a major Canadian newspaper would give a story such prominence without first verifying the facts.

Because of this blatant lack of journalistic standards, Minister Finley’s office will be registering a formal complaint with the Ontario Press Council, the Parliamentary Press Gallery and the Public Editor of the Toronto Star.

Another Guelph G20 THUG ID'ed by Toronto Police

21 year old Guelph activist/violent thug Kelly Pflug-Back is wanted by the Toronto Police Service, and is to be charged with six counts of mischief over $5,000 upon her arrest.

You might recall her name... she's one of the misfits who assaulted Olympic torch bearer Cortney Hansen back in January.

Guelph residents are asked to encourage Pflug-Back to turn herself in, or contact the G20 Investigative Team at 416-808-0650 with information assisting in her arrest.


UPDATE: She is now thankfully in the custody of police... hopefully for a long time, at least until she realizes how to interact with society in a civil manner.

Former Liberal MP Allan Rock responsible for cancelled Coulter event?

Well what do you know... looks like he's not quite as innocent as he initially made himself out to be.

From the Toronto Star, of all places...

In fact, the released documents show that it was Rock — not Houle — who asked that the email be sent. Rock even dictated some of the wording.

"Ann Coulter is a mean-spirited, small-minded, foul-mouthed poltroon," Rock wrote to Houle in a March 18 email. "She is 'the loud mouth that bespeaks the vacant mind'."

"She is an ill-informed and deeply offensive shill for a profoundly shallow and ignorant view of the world. She is a malignancy on the body politic. She is a disgrace to the broadcasting industry and a leading example of the dramatic decline in the quality of public discourse in recent times."

h/t to Strictly Right

Maybe Canada needs a face mask law?

In looking at the G20 protests in Toronto today, I've been doing some thinking, and I'm convinced that Canada needs to make it a Criminal Code offence to cover ones face in order to obscure one's identity.

I know this idea has been debated in the context of extremist Islam, where it's been proposed that Canada should ban the burka and any other religious face covering, as has been proposed in other nations. However, I don't think we need to go that far. Of course I firmly believe in religious rights, and think that Muslim women should be allowed the right to wear whatever they want, should they so choose... no matter how wrong I may believe they are in their faith.

However, I do agree that for the purposes of verifying their identitiy in the context of Government interaction, such as voting, getting a drivers license, etc., I believe that it should be mandatory to submit to a visual verification of their identity. Of course, there should be provisions made for this, such as ensuring that it's a woman doing the ID verification, along with privacy to do so, but these are reasonable compromises in my opinion.

Now, on to the other motivation for my proposal... that's right, you guessed it, to ensure that the illegal and criminal activities of protesters can be properly prosecuted. I think we should be making it as difficult as possible for people to be able to break our laws with impunity, simply because they've got a $1.00 piece of cloth in front of their faces. It would also cover the matter of protesters who have gas masks, which are worn for the express purpose of resisting the authority of our police services. Were we to make it illegal to obscure one's face for the purposes of avoiding identification, we can kill both birds with one single stone... the issues surrounding religious veils, AND around illegal protest tactics.

Such a law would easily survive a Charter challenge, as there is nothing within the Charter that guarentees the right to hide one's true identity. Such a law would not deny anyone's freedom of speech, nor their freedom of association, and therefore could not be struck down under those provisions of the Charter. Such a law would, however, give our police the tools they need to guarentee the rights of ALL OF US.

You see, the laws that were written to ensure our rights and freedoms have been blatantly abused by these protesters for too long now. In asserting their "rights", they have in fact denied many of us our own rights. With their blockades, their marches, their outlandish law-breaking tactics, they have many a time impeeded the rest of our rights, such as our own freedom of mobility, our ability to associate with those whom we choose to, and our right to say what we want to say... all in the name of their own "rights". Which, ironicly, is in many case the exact opposite of what they claim they're doing.

So to make a long story short, I think it's time that Canada considered a ban on tactics designed to obscure one's identity. It would serve as a deterance for some, knowing that they will be less likely to avoid the consequences of their actions. It would also ensure that the rights of the rest of us are protected, as those who choose to break the laws of our society will be properly prosecuted. For the vast majority of Candadians, I'd say about 99.9999% of us, such a law would be a WIN-WIN situation.

Plus it would be a thorn in the side of the extremist left... which then makes it a WIN-WIN-WIN situtation in my books.

CAPP now against SunTVNews

It's kinda both funny and sad to watch the left foaming at the mouth over the announcement of SunTVNews. Check this pic I snagged from their Facebook group today...

 Make sure you submit your two cents on the issue... and tell the CRTC that "Freedom of the Press" is still important here in Canada, despite the left's fervent desire to maintain a Stalinistic-like control over it.

"Daniel in the lions den" - Lone high school student stands up to angry anti-Israel mob

Props to this high school kid for taking a stand against tyranny and oppression... the oppression of the masses, where the many are able to drown out the voices of reason by shouting louder. (in typical leftist fashion)

CBC's Heather Mallick calling for an Opposition coalition

I guess Heather Mallik's ignorance of Canada shows what happens when you spend to many years out of the country...

Hey Heather, Canadians pretty clearly rejected the very idea of a left-wing coalition back in December of 2008, back when the CPC was polling around, oh what was it, about 41%? Oh, right, you weren't here for that... my bad.

You've got to LOVE this left-wing drivil from her poisioned pen...

Canada has a Conservative minority government right now that does have a core belief. It's that Canadians deserve a good stomping, all of them. Conservatives can't stand people, particularly if they're female, or second-generation Canadian, or educated, or principled, or not from Alberta, which is the home of the hard-right belly-bulging middle-aged Tory male. Watch them at the G8, ostensibly fighting for women's health internationally while blocking abortions for raped Congolese.

Harper cannot get a real majority. If the centre-right Liberals and the centre-left New Democrats would form a coalition, Harper would be toast and we'd get started on what we need: national day care, TGV trains, an economic strategy, a green strategy, oh a strategy for anything, a plan is all we seek.

Instead we hang.

Sound familiar? Yep, that pretty much sounds like the "culture war" strategy that the CBC is employing on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada... as recommended by Frank Graves. No wonder she's still working for the CBC.

UPDATE: Finally settled on my new name for her... "Hate'n Malice", cause that seems to be all that ever comes out of her mouth. Her mouth, and pretty much every mouthpiece of the Left, whenever they're talking about anyone who disagrees with their ideology.

Guelph Communist: "U of Guelph anti-CFS vote stacked by Zionists"

Excuse me? From the Facebook page of Drew Garvie, a left-wing agitator and perenial Communist Party candidate:

This referendum was totally stacked and more broadly we need to be more organized than the Right to win. The "No" people were a scary bunch of conservatives, libertarians, careerist Admin hacks, zionists and anti-choicers. An equally broad coalition of groups on the left is necessary to keep the CFS in Guelph. - Sat April 10, 2010 at 23:49

Scratch below the surface of a leftist, and you'll typically find an anti-Semite.

In case folks don't know who Drew Garvie is, he's also one of the folks who helped organize the shameful anti-General Hillier protest at the University of Guelph last year.

I find it interesting that he talks about forming a "broad coalition of groups on the left" in order to, I quote, "KEEP THE CFS IN GUELPH". But hang on... didn't the student body just vote overwhelmingly, with a whopping 74% I'll remind you, to terminate their relationship with the CFS? That's right folks, Drew's comments can only mean one thing... that far-left at the UofG is planning to organize an effort to thwart the results of the students democratic vote on their membership with the CFS.

Stay tuned, it looks like this fight is FAR from over...

U of Guelph votes to leave CFS!

By a RESOUNDING margin, students at the University of Guelph have voted 74% in favour of leaving the left-wing controlled CFS.

More to come...

Sent from my Blackberry

UPDATE: The UoG paper "The Canon" has a few more details.


UPDATE II: Welcome Guelph Communists! Just a helpful hint though... in future, you might not want to draw attention to yourselves by linking to this website from Facebook pages that contain anti-Semitic rants. Just a helpful suggestion. Oh, and one more suggestion Drew... don't bother running in the next election.

Great expose on the "anti-racism" industry

The NP's Johnathan Kay has a great report on his investigations into the left-wing "anti-racist" industry, entitled "White & Guilty". Just for context, it's far out groups like this that are likely the root cause of the fiasco that occurred in Ottawa at the Ann Coulter event the other week.

In fact, I felt sympathy for just about everyone in that class. In private conversation, they all seemed like good-hearted, intelligent people. But like communist diehards confessing their counter-revolutionary thought-crimes at a Soviet workers' council, or devout Catholics on their knees in the confession booth, they also seemed utterly consumed by their sin, regarding their pallor as a sort of moral leprosy. I came to see them as Lady Macbeths in reverse -- cursing skin with nary a "damn'd spot." Even basic communication with friends and fellow activists, I observed, was a plodding agony of self-censorship, in which every syllable was scrutinized for subconscious racist connotations as it was leaving their mouths.

While politically correct campus activists often come across as smug and single-minded, I realized, their intellectual life might more accurately be described as bipolar-- combining an ecstatic self-conception as high priestesses who pronounce upon the racist sins of our society, alongside extravagant self-mortification in regard to their own fallen state.

TVO's Steve Paikin to join the pro-Coulter/Free Speech movement?

I dunno, but after another loony leftist plot sought to derail a taping of his show "The Agenda", I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised. From Paiken's blog:

But just a few minutes into my interview with Minister Duncan, all hell broke loose.

At first, one member of the audience rushed the stage where we were located and began shouting questions at Duncan.

At first, I thought this was simply the act of one rude person, so I tried to interrupt her, assure her that there would be time for questions later, but that this was not the way we were going to do business.

Shortly thereafter, another half dozen protesters joined the first, continued to scream at the minister, and it became abundantly clear that this wasn't a case of a few rude audience members, but rather an orchestrated protest.

They'd cleverly entered the hall with their protest signs hidden under their coats, and blended in nicely.

Even though this had never happened before in ten years of doing programs at the Munk Centre, we actually do have a protocol in place in case something like this WERE to happen. We've just never had to roll it out.

When it was obvious the protesters had no plans to stop, I walked off set to Dan Dunsky, our executive producer, asked him what he wanted to do, and he calmly said, let's go to a break and get this back on track. That's the protocol.

And that's what we did.

Hey Steve... now you know how it feels to be a Conservative in Canada!

The extreme left has gotten completely out of control in this country. They know how to play the revolving-door, slap-on-the-wrist legal system, and they know full well that in our modern day of police-non-intervention, they can get away with pretty much anything short of actual murder. They're amoral thugs, goons, and walk amongst us chanting the mantra of "peace and harmony"... while actively seeking to shout down and repress the views of those with whom they disagree.

It's time for the Government, on all levels, to step in and do something about this. They need to give direction to our police services that it's time to ensure that the few do not have the power to repress the rights of other Canadians. It may even be time for new legislation to curb this real and ongoing threat. Strengthening of tresspassing laws, modification of conspiracy laws to include offences relating to the organizing of law breaking protests. Laws to allow for charges to be pressed against those who insite illegal activity via electronic means such as Facebook.

Now, there will be negative press involved, to be sure. The extremist left has gotten very good at "working the system" in terms of garnering media coverage, filing police complaints, etc. Our police need to know that their Government is going to back them up when it comes to enforcing the law of the land.

It's time to ensure that the far out, lawbreaking advocates of "social justice" get a taste of real justice... the kind that ensures that we really are a "free" society. It's time for the mainstream parties, the Tories, Liberals, and NDP, to strike some form of task force to craft legislation that all parties, and all normal Canadians, can support.

I just don't get what these kids are thinking... the more and more they "succeed" with these thuggish tactics, the more they solidify the position of their opponents... and the support for their opponents only increases! Take me, for example... while I opposed such tactics before, I wasn't as vocal in my opposition. Nor was I particularly supportive of the folks who want to scrap the HRC's... but if these sorts of things are allowed to continue unchecked, I think my positions will be in need of further review.

h/t to Russ Campbell for alerting us all to this fiasco.

The context of Coulter's "Camel" comment

Gotta LOVE the media spin, eh? Oh, the heartless right-winger insults a Muslim girl. Anyone care for some context?

Several friends of mine were at the London event, and I had a chance to talk to one of them this evening. And he shed some very interesting light on what really went down that night.

First of all, there's the "UNCUT" version of what actually happened... see it for yourself. Notes follow:


First observation... looks like this girl is reading her question off a Blackberry. Was perhaps she "fed" the question, I wonder?

Second of all, just listen to her tone... she wasn't looking for an answer, she was looking for an argument. The fact of which is backed up thanks to my friend's eye witness account. Apparently this young Muslim girl only showed up for the Q&A; session, and didn't even listen to what Ann had to say. Futhermore, I'm told she left immediately after her "camel" comment, and made a bee-line for the cameras. Yea, I'm thinking it was a setup from the get-go... to which of course, Ann was happy to oblige.

Thirdly, it would appear that the "camel" comment wasn't so much directed at her, as it was directed at the rude hecklers who were trying taunt her by shouting "ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!" Interestingly, she in fact WAS taking the time to answer the questions asked by this young woman, but she was doing so in her own particular manner... deconstructing them bit by bit, and dealing with the incorrect root issues underlying the questions.

For example, the first question was in regards to her comment "we should convert them to Christianity", made shortly after 9/11. She began her answer by correcting the questioner, and giving the full and exact quote, which was "We should bomb their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity". She then methodically detailed her rational for that answer, using the examples of American intervention in Japan at the end of WWII, and in South Korea after the Korean War. She detailed how during the reconstruction phases, a call was made to the Christian church for missionaries, who are well known the world over for our humaitarian work. In fact, many well known and respected aid organizations in the world are in fact Christian founded organizations, who's original (and for some, still is) goal was to spread the Gospel of the love of God for mankind, as expressed in our Lord Jesus Christ.

She then made the second and vitally important statement that defines "genuine" Christian faith... we don't "force" conversions. (and those who do, I submit to you, don't know the Lord whom they claim to profess) This is an important detail to remember in the context of her quote... we OFFER Christianity, we don't "enforce" it. So when she said we should "convert them to Christianity", she wasn't talking about forced conversions. For the record, and to answer a comment from a reader earlier today, I submit to you that THAT is one of the best ways to tell the genuineness of someone's supposed "Christian" faith... we do the preaching and aid part, not the bombing and killing part.

I'll interject here and correct a misconception that many have... the USA and Christianity are NOT synomymous. No matter how much "America" thinks of itself as a "Christian" nation, I've got a news flash for ya... IT'S NOT. So, for the likes of far left readers like Jerry, DON'T go assuming that I link the two together. (I'm actually rather sick and tired of that incorrect linkage, thank you very much... but that's Liberal "hidden agenda" fear and smear for ya, I guess)

Anyway, back to the main point of what she was talking about... she was attempting to tell the audience of the incredible success stories that are today's Japan and Korea. Which were accomplished, in both cases, when the United States "bombed their countries, killed their leaders, and converted (some of) them to Christianity".

Before anyone gets their knickers in a knot... I'm not saying I agree with her premise. I don't, when viewed through the lens of my faith. However, from a strictly "secular" perspective, I can see why some people might agree with it. (now aren't you GLAD that I'm a Christian? LOL...)

While she was continuing to "answer the question", or at least the first part of it, several of the "left" who were in attendance, who only wanted the sound byte I assume, got tired of the history lesson and started shouting "ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!" After about a dozen similarly ideologically aligned detractors in the audience chimed in as well, rudely demanding that she hurry up and fit her answer into a single soundbyte that would fit into their obviously limited attention span, (funny, I thought they were all for logical and reasoned answers... my mistake I guess) she decided to honour their request... she skipped the rest of her answer to the first question, and crafted a witty response directed instead at the hecklers in lieu of a second answer... "What mode of transportation? TAKE A CAMEL."

And of course, at that point, that's the ONLY thing that any of the already ideologically entrenched detractors heard that evening. Who, of course, were more than happy to plead their "offendedness" to the waiting cameras. You know, "Offendedness"... it's a lot like "Truthiness". Whereas Colbert's "Truthiness" is for the Right, likewise "Offendedness" is the bastion of the Left.

So you see? It's all about the context. If it wasn't for the rude appearence of the ever present and easily offended species of "Interruptist Protestest Professionalis", that poor Muslim girl might of gotten an actual answer from the right-wing "hater". Oh well... too bad for them.

Oh, and while we're on that topic... did you know she hates Israel? Not Ann... I mean the other girl.

Yea... I'm thinking it was a set up.

Ottawa Citizen: "The thuggery of student activists"

Great editorial over at the Ottawa Citizen, commenting on a major growing problem that few in the media dare to tackle... the thuggish tactics being employed more frequently, and more successfully, by the far left in Canada.

It's time for some tougher laws.

Mob rules at the U of O
The Ottawa Citizen - March 25, 2010

Ann Coulter's opinions can be obnoxious, offensive and just plain wrong. But she's spot-on about one thing: that the University of Ottawa has shown itself to be a "bush-league" school.

The thuggery of student activists is a growing problem at Canadian campuses, but the spectacle at the University of Ottawa was truly a colossal embarrassment, for both the university and the city. Ottawa is the capital of a G8 country, yet our premier research university is evidently so insecure and insular that a talk-TV pundit from the U.S. represented an intolerable intellectual threat.

We wish we could blame only the students for shaming the university. But the administration was complicit in the successful campaign to shut down Coulter's much publicized talk on campus.

It began when the university's vice-president academic and provost, François Houle, sent Coulter a bizarre e-mail, in which he made it perfectly clear that he detests her polemical style and that she should watch her back, lest she find herself facing "criminal" or "defamation" laws. He told Coulter -- in the most condescending of tones -- that the University of Ottawa has a tradition of "restraint, respect and consideration" and therefore that is why he feels it is necessary to invoke what "may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression."

Can anyone imagine an academic leader from Princeton University writing to a TV personality and saying, essentially: "You know, our students are very sensitive, so please when you visit don't say anything that will make them uncomfortable"? Would the vice-president of Harvard do this? Of course not.

The principal effect of Houle's foolish letter was to empower, albeit unwittingly, the student mob who came out Tuesday night to chase Coulter from campus. After all, Houle in so many words called Coulter a hatemonger and made it plain that her kind was not welcome.

The humiliating episode is a giant gift for a publicity-hound like Coulter. In an interview with a U.S. newspaper that had got wind of the incident, Coulter noted that students at serious universities are too "intellectually proud" to shut down speakers they don't agree with. She visits liberal campuses all the time without fearing for her safety. But at the University of Ottawa, she quipped, "their IQ points-to-teeth ratio must be about 1-to-1."

That smarts, but the University of Ottawa deserves the rebuke.

The shutting down of Ann Coulter is only the latest example of totalitarianism on Canadian campuses. At Concordia University in Montreal, thugs famously prevented Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu from speaking. At many campuses, pro-life student groups are harassed and denied official club status. When pro-choice student leaders at Toronto's York University learned that other students had organized a debate over the ethics of abortion, they promptly cancelled it, even though the event had been booked and the flyers printed.

Notice that this ongoing, organized effort to eliminate speech deemed politically unacceptable comes exclusively from the campus left. No one hears of conservative student groups physically interfering with left-wing speakers. A lot of conservative-minded students (and others) were unhappy with the recent Israel Apartheid Week, for example, but no one threatened to assault the organizers or disrupt the event.

We have no love for a buffoonish provocateur like Ann Coulter. It says something about the maturity and calibre of some University of Ottawa students that Coulter is the dignified party in this dispute.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

UofG's CSA takes CFS to court

It's FANTASTIC to see a student government who refuse to be bullied by the thugs who run the CFS.

Despite all the underhanded tactics that the CFS has tried to pull to quash a democratic vote, the University of Guelph's CSA has refused to back down, and has gone to court in order to ensure that their students have the right to vote on whether or not they remain a part of the CFS.

You might recall that I reported the other week that this referendum on the CFS at UofG is supported by the campus clubs of ALL MAJOR PARTIES. Once again, it's GREAT to see students working together for a common and worthwhile goal.

The CFS is in serious trouble... and they know it. There's a serious movement going on at Carleton, in the anti-CFS "We Want Out" campaign. They've also done a fantastic job of compiling a list of over 100 CFS related articles they could find, documenting all the antics of the CFS for everyone to see. Just give a read through a few of the articles, and I pretty much assure you that if you were pro-CFS before, you won't be after reading those articles.

Rush on CNN's bias: Coverage of Bush vs. Obama's approval numbers

Only one thing to say... BWAAA HA HA HA!!!