Archive for July, 2014

Canadians Have The Right To Bear Arms Says Steven Blaney Minister Of Public Safety And Emergency Preparedness

How easy this government forgets!

How easy this government forgets!


 What a joke the Conservative Party of Canada has become with  Stephen Harper as its leader.  They have proved to be out of step with what  is a constitutional right in Canada and seem unable to grasp what is in their power to do and what is not when creating new laws, or changing old ones that will stand up when challenged in the  Supreme Court of Canada.  I think that the problem is that the Conservative Party of  Canada’s back benchers and front back benchers, secretaries to ministers and ministers all the way up to and including Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the PMO, cannot distinguish the difference between what is a constitutional right in Canada and what is a privilege in Canada.

Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Steven Blaney, proved that he is no more knowledgeable in these matters than that of the rest of his fellow ministers in regards to what country’s legal system he is governing under and what the difference is between a right and a privilege  where Canadian law is concerned.  When Steven Blaney made the statement at a press conference he called, “Canadians have the right to bear arms that comes with a responsibility” and then repeated that gibberish during an interview on Power and Politics, I think he showed not only his contempt for the Supreme court of Canada and the bureaucrats in the RCMP as he called them, but also where the Conservative Party of Canada’s priorities lie when it comes to soliciting votes and keeping our law enforcement as free from unnecessary risks to their lives as possible and the people of Canada safe from maniacs with semi-automatic and automatic firearms.

Even when Steven Blaney Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was reminded in an interview on television, by the host of Power and Politics that the Supreme Court of Canada has shot down this assertion of the right to bare arms as a Canadian right on numerous occasions over the years and consistently said that the right to own firearms is a privilege in Canada and not a right, Steven Blaney, repeatedly said that  he and his party think that it is.  The Conservative Party of Canada seems to be so desperate to secure a voting block fanatical enough to vote for it despite all of the scandals and screw ups that it is willing to put  the safety of Canadians a risk, by playing politics with gun control.  Do Canadian anglers and hunters need another gun in their arsenal so badly that it is worth risking the life of one law enforcement officer, or one citizen for? Does the Conservative Party of Canada need votes so badly that they are willing to risk the deaths of Canadian citizens to get them? I think with their latest announcement they have proved that they are willing to win even if it means the majority of Canadians safety is put at risk.

What legitimate range shooter, or hunter needs to have a Swiss Arms Classic  semi-automatic riffle in their possession to hunt deer, moose, or bear? The only purpose to practice with that weapon is to be able to when the time and situation is right to kill another human being.   One would think that after  the attempted assassination of Pauline Marois,  the murder of RCMP officers in Moncton and remembering The École Polytechnique Massacre of 1989 that Steven Blaney Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, would be trying to get these types of firearms off the street and out of the hands of all Canadians and yet this is not the case. Despite the decision of the RCMP  after a year-long study to ban the ownership of the Swiss Arms Classic Green semi-automatic rifles, Steven Blaney Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Conservative government of Canada have decided to ignore the RCMP and is  granting a two-year amnesty to owners of Swiss Arms Classic Green semi-automatic rifles.  This in my opinion is putting all law enforcement officers at a greater risk of being killed by lunatics without a criminal record who can legally purchase semi-automatic weapons of the nature shown above now. This is yet another purely political move to keep the vote of gun lobbyist.  These lobbyists have accused the Conservative Party of Canada of betraying them once they helped get them elected in the last election and have been threatening to not vote for them in the next election if they did not start giving them what they want. Does the Conservative Party of Canada also believe that along with the right to bear arms that Canadians have the right to use those guns to rid themselves of an unjust, corrupt, oppressive government that they feel no longer represents the people,  as the gun lobbyist believe in the USA believe is one of the root purposes of their right to bear arms?

With the Supreme Court saying that Canadians do not have a right to bear arms in Canada and the RCMP after doing a year-long study on the Swiss Arms Classic Green semi-automatic rifle deciding to ban the weapons ownership and use in Canada, stating they suspected the guns could be converted to automatic weapons, which are illegal in Canada, why else but for political gain would the Conservative Party of Canada choose to ignore both the RCMP and the Supreme Court of Canada?  If it is the job of the government to do what is best for all Canadians and insure that the laws it makes represents what is in the best interest of all Canadians please tell me how giving anyone who can pass a fire arms test and does not have a criminal record involving domestic violence the opportunity to arm themselves with a semi-automatic rifle that the police say is easily converted to an automatic rifle is in the best interest of the general public? Keeping in mind that children who bring guns to school and kill their bullies, have never been found guilty of a criminal offense before and neither have those disgruntled employees who walk into offices and start randomly shooting management and co-workers. All people who kill their spouses, or children with firearms have not all had criminal records in their past, or been convicted of domestic violence, so the chances of screening out all that would do harm with this weapon is as impossible a task as any other weapon.  With the long gun registry scrapped by this government police will not know if this type of weapon is in a house that they are called to enter and so thanks to this government will be placed a risk once again so that the Conservative Party of Canada can score political points with its base.

The big reason for the government taking away the  rights of Canadians guaranteed in the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  pertaining to privacy and  due legal process are that the government claims that we have been infiltrated by terrorists through our immigration system, who have now spawned what they are now calling home-grown terrorists.  Most of those who have gone off and fought for what the government calls terrorist  organisations abroad have never been found guilty of a criminal offense before, so how does Steven Blaney Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, know that he is not arming home-grown terrorist with semi-automatic weapons that are easily converted to automatic weapons that can be turned against our military personnel and our members of law enforcement?

In closing I would like to say these few words, “As far as gun owners being responsible for this new right that Steven Blaney Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, is attempting to give to them, I think that gun owners should be truly responsible for the privilege like Steven Blaney is suggesting. If Canadians are going to insist on their right to have guns then I think that they should be made to be responsible for everything that their guns are used for, whether in their hand, or in the hand of another unbeknownst to them, or without their expressed permission. Far too many illegal guns start off as legal  guns that get stolen from homes and then are used to commit crimes; some guns are found by children and used to commit crimes, settle scores, or accidentally kill a friend or sibling; my thought is that the original owner of the firearm should be held accountable for allowing his or her firearm to fall into the wrong hands and be used in a crime and all such instances be deemed neglect on the part of the original gun owner, if the firearm was not reported stolen before the commission of a crime. I would like to see the new law hold the owners of unreported stolen firearms viewed as an accessory to the crime under the law and be subject to the same penalties as the actual perpetrator of the crime.  I feel that they the original gun owner should be subject to the same jail time and penalties as the person using their weapon to commit the crime and that they should have to make restitution to the injured party, or their families.  I wonder how many people would find it within their rights and demand that they be allowed to own a firearm if they were going to be held    responsible for whatever crime that firearm was used in, if its being lost or stolen and was not reported to the police, or until they handed it over to the police before it got into the wrong hands and it that way were absolved of the responsibility for it and the consequences?”


Terrorism, Terrorists How Can Canada Presume To Use These Labels?

Would Canada care about labels like terrorist and terrorist state, if this was happening to us?

Is this the picture of Israel seeking to live in peace? Looks kind of like the multi state solution Canada forced on its First Nations and is being negotiated in the same manner!

Please do not use Stephen Harper’s definition of terrorists, or terrorism when looking at the Middle East, because, in my opinion:

(a) Stephen Harper believes that environmental activists are terrorists.

(b) Stephen Harper believes that what we have done and continue to do to our First Nations is good for them and for Canada.

(c) Stephen Harper does not believe in or show any interest in upholding, or following through on the multi state land agreements and treaties that Canada’s founding fathers negotiated many generations ago.  The fact is Stephen Harper does not believe in negotiations of any kind. Stephen Harper has just about  made striking illegal in Canada. Stephen Harper  has shown through his actions that he feels that deals negotiated in good faith (retirement medical benefits for Canada’s civil servants) and agreed upon by both government and workers using the legal collective bargaining process before his government came to power were not in the best interest of the economy of Canada and therefore are to be considered moot and renegotiated.

(d) Stephen Harper without benefit of consent seeks to diminish the rights and renege on what little of the treaties and agreements previous governments did uphold.

(e) Stephen Harper is a racist and a religious bigot, who lusts after power and glory and does not mind killing the innocent, even if they are children as long as the ends justify his means.

Canadians are good at applying labels to people that we wish to control, or change that resist us. In the past we have used savages to describe aboriginal people we encountered, the inhabitants of lands we wished to take for ourselves and they resisted. Savages were those who did not believe in our God, did not speak our language and did not follow our customs.  These things gave people an inhuman quality to us and devalued them in our eyes as to make them not even worthy to be considered stealing from and so what they had could be taken in the name of God, because we would be doing God’s work as well as doing them a favor by forcing them to be like us, elevated from savage to human being serving the one true God and in reality that is still going on today any where that the ancestors of those European kings of old put their feet on the ground.

Terrorists is the new word for savages, those who speak a different language, believe in a different religion and are culturally different and will not change. We throw around words like duly elected democratic government as though it really means something in terms of our own governance.  After 8 years of being governed by the Conservative Party of Canada, led by Stephen Harper, I find myself asking, what does democracy stand for in Canada anymore, if anything at all and why would we wish to impose a form of governance on anyone else that has the possibility of giving despot like powers to the head of one party with a majority government?

So if terrorism in reality means violently resisting an invading force, or occupying force, then logically speaking terrorists are in reality freedom fighters trying to keep their religion, language and culture and choice of governance the way it has always been and the names of terrorism and terrorist are names created to create fear  back home and  justifiable reasons for wars nobody wants except the new church of Big Business, the religion of Globalization and the culture of greed.

I listened to  a statement made by the Foreign Minister of Canada, John Baird the other day and realised just how arrogant and self-centered we in the west are in our view, or characterization of others who do not believe in what we do and are prepared to defend who they are and what they believe in.  John Baird and his colleagues believe and say publicly that all Israelis are good people, who have done nothing wrong and are just trying to defend the land they have acquired in a similar fashion that we Canadians acquired our own country and are fighting not to give back  any of  to our First Nations. Muslims however are always depicted as 2 different people the 1st are  those poor good guys that want to be like us and the 2nd being those terrorists who are stopping the 1st from doing what they want and what we as a government feel is in their best interest.

What I am getting at is that we in the west deem it our sole jurisdiction, right  and privilege to define what terrorism is, who is a terrorist by our definition and that all of the world agree with our hypothesis.  Right now John Baird says that Canada’s position and support for Israel begins and ends with it being a democratic state. We want desperately for them and the United Nations to understand that we support  Israel bombing the Palestinians and killing innocent Palestinian men women and children that want to be like us, because Israel is killing them for their own good and a better life for them in the future; a future without Hamas and those other Palestinian rebel terrorists, for whatever is left of their population; kind of like what we did for our Indians of North America.  One problem John Baird and people who think like him have is that they can not see that what our ancestors did to the North American Indians was wrong for what ever reason it was done and should never be repeated to any people by another, as the holocaust or African Slavery shouldn’t and so they continue to try to pass on their bad habits and ideologies and use military force to try to force their way on others.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird and  Parliamentary Secretary to th Minister of Immigration Costas Menegakis, have all made statements of support for Israel in a very public way and brushed aside the fact that Israel is killing more Palestinian children than they are killing who they refer to as terrorists, like the children of Palestinians are justifiable, collateral damage of war and therefore acceptable losses, or if at loss for a word try expendable.  I feel that Stephen Harper, John Baird, Costas Menegakis, their colleagues  along with Israel  consider all Palestinian children to be just little terrorist in waiting to be exterminated along with the rest, but discreetly as to not attract the wrong sort of unwanted attention.

Where else in what other situation would the occupation of another country’s land, the building of illegal settlements on that land, the siphoning off of a country’s  water supply, the installing of restrictive border crossing making it next to impossible for the people of the region to travel from village to village since 1967, (a 47 year temporary occupation) be supported by Canada and seen by Canada as that country seeking a peaceful solution to a never-ending war?  In what other situation would Canada support the naval blockade put in place to starve and deny a country the basic necessities for over 8 years now and agree that it is not doing any harm to the country and their people who are under siege?  John Baird said that we Canadians should not confuse Hamas with the Palestinian people and that he and the leaders of Israel are working together to fight Hamas and so I would ask the question, “Is it to be understood that the Palestinian president is asking Israel to murder his people and children on beaches, while at prayer and while in hospital in an effort to rid both sides of Hamas?” It would seem to me that the core issue will always be that Israel must end its illegal occupation of Palestinian land, before there can be any hope of a lasting peace.

Canada’s unconditional support of Israel is a big part of the problem with what is happening in the Middle East today! We have just told the United Nations and anyone listening that we as a nation support the killing of Palestinian civilians and babies as part of Israel’s right to defend themselves. Is it truly Canada’s understanding that it is only the Palestinians that are at fault in the Middle East and that Israel is without any blame? Are all Muslim people facing a Judeo- Christian occupation who seek to defend their homeland and existence to be labeled terrorists? It would seem that the price of supporting the Zionist state of Israel is the total annihilation of the Palestinian people; a price the Israeli’s do not seem to mind paying and does not bother their consciences one little bit. The question now becomes does Canada intend to support and assist in the mass murdering and extinction of a people down to the last man, women and child? We know what is motivating Israel and why this is so important to them and why they feel that the deaths of the innocent are to be considered just collateral damage, but what is the Conservative Government of Canada’s motivation for its unconditional support of Israel as it spills the blood of babies?

We Canadians, the believers of democracy, the right to choose, and the newly self-appointed protector of the non-democratically governed, have closed the door to diplomatic solutions to any country that is in opposition to our point of view. How does one hope to broker a peaceful diplomatic solution to a war by throwing labels around like terrorist state and making such ridiculous lists? How much peace has our new form of diplomacy racked up?  Imagine Hamas said no to a cease-fire that no one could advise them of, because no one was talking to them on a diplomatic level. Kind of sounds like how our government negotiates with our First Nations, telling them what was agreed upon without them being at the negotiating table  and then asking them for their support about things that they will be forced to live with for the rest of their lives, without having been a part of the process.

Do we in Canada place such a high value on being a democratic state that we are willing as a country to turn a blind eye to the murdering of little children by another democratic state, because we share the same political ideology, form of government and God?  Is the spreading of democracy and having it be the only form of government in the world becoming such a priority to us that we are willing to exterminate all that do not believe as we do and choose to have another form of government?  I hear of dying children and I weep no matter their ethnicity, or to whom they pray, or who governs them, because I know that they have not harmed anyone and are truly innocent.  A moral country, a moral people, or a moral government would not be able to run over innocent men women or children with their tanks, or drop bombs on them from the sky to get to the enemy; they would be compelled by morality and a sense of what was right to find another way. I would like to think that if Canadian soldiers saw a line of innocent men, women and  children spread across a road they needed to go up with tanks of the enemy directly behind them, that our soldiers would not fire upon the enemy and would not drive over the innocent, but would retreat from them until another way could be found that did not involve killing kids, or innocent men and women. This is no longer the way of the Canadian government in power now though and I have to wonder what is up Canada?

Food For Thought: Unfortunately with the likes of John Baird, Stephen Harper and Costas Menegakis speaking for Canada in the Middle East peace process all Canada can offer Israel is advice on how to hide one’s guilt in the history books of one’s country for being the cause of the deaths of entire tribes of innocent people; how to hold your head and deny being responsible for the extinction of  entire tribes of  people and how to move forward claiming it was the diseases and not the greed for what belonged to another that killed at least 2 entire tribes, namely the Beothuk and Hachaath. The Beothuk Tribes of Newfoundland are no more, the Hachaath lived on Vancouver Island and Barcland Island, but are no more, but Canadian history blames it all on disease and will not admit that all that we as Canadians have today has been paid for with the blood of our First Nations.  This is all Canada right now can advise Israel on without being a hypocrite and a 2 faced liar. Canada could never be  a part of  peaceful, negotiated 2 state solution, because it just doesn’t believe in them as our own history shows, but Canada can advise how to live with one’s self  and be proud of one’s history and heritage after murdering every last man, women and child in at least one tribe of people.

The state of Israel was not created in the middle of Palestine with Palestinian consent in 1947 and was not some uninhabited territory of any countries to give away to appease their consciences for allowing over 6 million European Jews to be murdered by Hitler.  Within 20 years Israel has stolen most of what was Palestine with the help of unconditional financial and military support from countries like the USA, France and Great Britain. By 2010 Israel illegally occupied almost all of what was Palestine except for a very small portion  and is building illegal settlements there while claiming it seeks to live in peace with the Palestinians, while protesting that they are being attacked by terrorists.  If this was happening to your country would you care how many terrorists lists you were on, or how many time you were called a terrorist, or would you like the Palestinians make life impossible and sleepless for your illegal occupiers?

Progressive Conservative Party Of Alberta Welcomes Disgraced MLA Michael Allen Back Into Caucus With Warm Applause And Lots Of Claps On The Back?

Welcome Back MLA Mike Allen?

Welcome Back MLA Mike Allen?

Well it would seem that  not all Progressive Conservative politicians in Canada believe that prostitution should be eradicated; well at least not in Alberta anyway.  As the Conservative government of Canada fights with the Supreme Court of Canada over the rejection of the anti prostitution law and vows to wipe out prostitution in Canada,  Alberta MLA Mike Allen, was in the USA on official government business, representing his province and country getting caught in a police sting trying to buy sex from a prostitute.  Now we know that the federal Tories want to make buying sex from prostitutes a crime, but it is obvious MLA Mike Allen  of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta and the Progressive Party of Alberta do not see the harm in buying a little commercial fluff as long as the buying takes place outside of Canada.

There is one thing that both federal Tories and Alberta Tories agree on though and that is that members of the caucus are above the law.  Get tough on johns is the cry from federal conservatives and so it kind of makes you wonder, does the Conservative Party of Alberta believe that it is only Canadian girls and women that need protection from being forced into the tragic life of prostitution , or did they think that Alberta MLA Mike Allen knew that the ladies of the evening he was trying to hire for sex were in the prostitution of their own choice and not being pimped.

I understand that Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo’s MLA Mike Allen made a bad decision, but why is it the non politician is expected to pay for their crime of being weak, or willing to pay for sexual release with a hefty fine, face splattered all over a federally run website and possibly face time in jail and  Progressive Party of Canada for Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo , Mike Allen gets to sit as and independent for a while in the legislature and then in what appears to an attempt to hide their individual views gets voted back into caucus. In describing the return of Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo member of the legislature Mike Allen, Government whip George VanderBurg said, “Mike joined us after the caucus meeting for lunch and he got a very, very warm welcome … He got a warm applause and lots of pats on the back.”   No admonishment,  no warnings, no heart to heart, just welcome back Mike keep up the good work you been doing as an MLA?

Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta’s, Government whip George VanderBurg seemed to thing that the hard work that Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo’s MLA has done before and after he was kicked out of caucus for trying to buy hookers in the USA, while on a paid business trip representing both Canada and the province of Alberta justifies his being returned to caucus. My question is why was he returned at all, and if he was returned why did he not have to do so humble and with the shame that all conservatives want others who commit the same crime according to them have to live through and with for the rest of their days on this planet?

Government whip George VanderBurg said on behalf of  Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo member of the legislature Mike Allen, “Mike had made a mistake. He admitted that. He paid his price both personally and publicly. He made his apology. He had his time in the corner and now it is time for Mike to get back to work. In all of us, we forgive people for their sins.”  I say not so, the only people who the Progressive Conservative  Party forgive for making what they deem to be a mistake are their own members, everyone else is punished to the full extent of the law, or is hounded and harassed out of politics and if they are civilians they are forced into court and into jail.

After Allen was arrested, premier Alison Redford said she was “disgusted” by his actions and called them “more than inappropriate.”  It would seem that her replacement premier Dave Hancock does not share her opinion of  buying prostitutes while on government business and the price he had to pay for his sins as government whip George VanderBurg indicated he had been made to do under the leadership of Alison Redford.

 Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo’s member of the legislature Mike Allen actually learned from this whole affair that is important and I do not think that he learned anything except it was embarrassing to get caught and that ultimately ended up being a bad career decision. Here is what he had to say,

“I made a grave error in judgment and its something I think about every day … I think about what got me to that point. I reached a low point in my life and I made a decision on an impulse. So the biggest lesson I learned was that there are many choices we make as we move through life and you always have to think about what the impacts of those choices are going to have on what you do.”  “It’s something I will have to keep working on and will keep working to regain that trust from those that aren’t happy with what I did.”

The fact that he could have been buying sex from a prostitute forced into the business, beaten, forced onto drugs, or a victim of trafficking did not matter when he attempted to relive his lonely spell with sexual gratification of 2 prostitutes, or now that he has had time to think about it, because it happened outside of Canada, or perhaps because he is a member of the Conservative Party of Alberta and therefore above the law. What of the Progressive Party of Canada’s law  that makes the buying of sexual services illegal?  Remember the Conservative Party of Alberta just removed their premier for taking her child and her friend on a trip paid for by the taxpayers and for designing her self too plush an office, but has seen fit to reinstate a “John” a public embarrassment the likes of Toronto’s mayor Ford back into caucus and has the temerity and arrogance to feel that there will be no political fallout to be paid for taking him back into the fold amid lots of pats on the back and warm applause, more like a returning hero, rather than a disgraced MLA given a last chance to redeem himself.

I think the message is clear that the forgiving Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta do not see anything wrong with prostitution as long as you are discreet about it. Prostitution is and has always been a means for married and unmarried men to fulfill their sexual desires and is as much a part of old western culture, as cows, horses,  wheat, guns and cowboys.  Whore houses and saloons have been part of every, mining camp and railroad town and moved hand in hand with progress and the need for such places of relief will not be changed, just because the men used to such things are no longer forced to work in remote areas where single women looking to be wives are now in an over abundance and are jealous that their expectant husbands and husbands are spending too much time and money on prostitutes.  All people get lonely, have breakups and feel the need for sexual gratification, so why is it only Tori males that can buy those services from a  prostitute  without fear of facing the full extent of the law, or at least from their own prime minister, premier, or party caucus?

I grew up in an area where girls were lured into prostitution, went into for the love of a man, forced into it by drug dependence and gang raped into submission when there was nothing left to the child’s dignity and self-esteem, but I have never seen a child stand up on career day in school and say that they wanted to be a whore when they grew up.  Girls get abused at home, by teachers for grades, by boys at parties and some just make bad choices that lead them into prostitution as a sole means to pay their way and put food on the table, but I can guarantee that if those girls now women are honest they would have to admit that they are trying to save a lucrative way of earning a living for themselves at the expense of the innocent young girls still young enough to be saved, as well as keep the supply of fresh meat for their clients coming in.  I can guarantee that the madams and runners of such establishments could careless how and why the girls arrive at their door to service their clients as long as they are well versed in their trade.

I can also guarantee that it will be the pimps that will be opening these whore houses. We need to stop creating nice little words for things that embarrass people a whore is a whore no matter how nice you make it sound (prostitute, sex trade worker, lady of the evening) and the reason they were embarrassed is because the service that they sold and still sell was and is an embarrassment to all women and shameful. the selling of sex to men by women cheapens the relationship between women and men making the women simply a vehicle of a man’s sexual needs.  How many women have to disappear, be murdered like Theresa Merrie Innes; how many young girls have to be rescued from whore-houses where they have been forced to provide so called decent lonely men like MLA Michael Allen and finally how many young girls have to be denied education, kidnapped and force to be nothing more than good wives to their husbands, before we wake up and say no more?