Archive for November, 2014

There Are Two Alleged Victims And Two Real Victims On Parliament Hill. Can You Tell Who Is Who?

When seeking the truth is considered as Slut-Slamming by MPs responsible for the making of our laws  like Megan Leslie, how are we to claim equality of justice for all?

When seeking the truth is considered to be Slut-Slamming by MPs responsible for the making of our laws like Megan Leslie, how are we to claim equality of justice for all?

It is becoming increasingly clear, that politicians such as the NDP’s leader Tom Mulcair and MP Megan Leslie believe that once a woman accuses a man of any wrong doing of a sexual nature that there is no need for further investigation into the matter and that any such investigation is to “re-victimise” the accuser.  Here is what they both had to say about Justin Trudeau’s handling of the alleged wrong doings once he was made  aware of the accusations by one of the female NDP accusers, even though he was very careful not to disclose anything the individuals did not want to disclose:

Tom Mulcair  “Neither MP wanted their allegations made public.” “Anyone who went against that, of course, would be making them become victims a second time.”

 Megan Leslie  responding to questions on television program,“They didn’t have consent from these women, they didn’t have permission from these women,” Ms. Leslie said. “… some people have said, ‘well, what should the Liberals have done?’ Ms. Leslie responds, “They could have asked.”

Megan Leslie appears to be saying that in such cases only the rights of the accuser as far as expectation to confidentiality, anonymity and right to be considered innocent until proved guilty need to be respected and that any suspicion, objection, or talk of self-protection against false accusations is to be considered, ‘slut-shaming’. Let’s take a look at what sixty-nine-year-old Edmonton East, Conservative MP, Peter Goldring  had to say in response to allegations of harassment made recently by two female New Democrat MPs against two male Liberal MPs, who have since been suspended from their caucus and then take a look at Ms. Leslie’s response to his statement was.

Peter Goldring’s statement: “It will not be good enough to simply say that your intentions were honorable and you were just inviting a colleague to your apartment at two in the morning to play a game of Scrabble at the end of a day of playing sports and drinking. MPs must learn, as I have from encounters with authority figures in the past, that all do not tell the truth. I now wear ‘protection’ in the form of body-worn video recording equipment. I suggest that others do so too, particularly because some accusers hide behind a shield of supposed credibility which many times is not, and sometimes even hide behind a cloak of anonymity, which conceals their shameful indiscretion and complicity.”

Megan Leslie’s response: Megan Leslie called Goldring’s comments “preposterous” during an interview on CBC News Network’s Power & Politics Wednesday evening. She said his statement trivialized a very serious issue. Megan Leslie says, “I’ll take a deep breath and say that ‘accusers’ is code for ‘women.’ This is slut-shaming at its finest … the idea of ‘she asked for it,’ a lack of credibility about a woman coming forward.”

What I am saying is that  from what I have been seeing, reading and hearing from MPs like Megan Leslie, NDP leader Tom Mulcair, the PMO  and Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, is that in Canada male MPs faced with what amounts to total character assignation, via very detailed, serious, career ending allegations being leveled at them via press interviews being given by a female accuser hiding behind the protection of anonymity, only have the right to remain silent and if they choose not to avail themselves of that right it will be forced upon them, by their colleagues and those who could harm their careers. Consider for a moment that:

  • They have been named publicly and no one gives a damn whether, or how it hurts them, be it personally, politically, or financially.
  • After all parties are asked not to talk publicly and agree to handle the problem privately, one of the female accusers gives an interview in which she tells her account of what happens in the press in a very graphic manner and everyone says that it is within her rights to do so if she wishes, but the accused must still respect her right not to be named publicly.
  • No charges need to be laid, no supporting evidence produced by the accusers and no trial seems to be required for the accused to be punished in this kangaroo court, where justice is sought only to appease public outrage.
  • The 2 males have become collateral damage in a war to get the conversation of harassment and sexual harassment of women in the workplace started and no politician will risk doing what is right for fear of the political fallout in an election year.

Everyone is talking about getting a policy in place to deal with these types of allegations in the future and in my opinion ignoring the fact that this current harassment case has not been resolved and  we still have 2 alleged victims and 2 very real victims of this mess under tremendous pressure that is threatening to ruin all of their lives.  I think that MPs like Megan Leslie, Tom Mulcair, the PMO  and Liberal leader Justin Trudeau who think that only women need to be treated fairly in circumstances such as these are wrong, because the law is supposed to be the same for every one; blind to gender, race and things of this nature. To treat women like they do not lie, like it appears Megan Leslie is suggesting seems ‘preposterous,’ to me.

The standards of proof required to achieve a guilty or innocent verdict, the legal requirement for the accuser to prove their case and the blindness of the justice system are not mistakes; they are the checks and balance that ensure that all of us get a fair trial. In Canada we hear all too often now on the news how charges will be brought against someone, not based on facts or evidence, but instead because of public outrage, or demand for vengeance and mob justice must be appeased.  We have lawyers and judges to guide us through court cases and arrive a decisions of guilt or innocence based solely on evidence brought forward by both sides within the legal framework of the  law. This means these professionals look past the emotion, exaggeration and personal biases and prejudices that each side brings to the table and advise, judge and eventually arrive at a decision to absolve or punish based solely by what the law dictates.  Canadians may not always agree with the courts  decisions, but at the very least both sides get to be heard.  What we have now are parliamentarians taking the law into their own hands and becoming the judge, jury and executioner. I would ask why the accusers were not referred to the police and the matter left to the courts to resolve, where those trained to handle such matters could have done their job?

Answer This Question For Me: Why did the NDP female MP now giving interviews feel that it was more important to tell the public just how much the sex hurt, rather than take the opportunity to:

  • Say that she had indeed said ‘no’ to him?
  • Explain how she fought him off unsuccessfully?
  • Was too drunk to consent?
  • Had been drugged by him?
  • How he threatened her in some way?
  • how he forced her to remain quiet while he had his way with her?

Answer me this, if her giving interviews as some suggest is about taking control of the story, why would she not mention anything that he did that night that would indicate unwanted sex, rather than just bad sex, or regrets the morning after? The question for Canadians to answer is, are these legitimate questions, or are they “slut-shaming at its finest,” as NDP MP Megan Leslie seems to be suggesting in my opinion?


Were Warrant Officer Vincent And Cpl. Cirillo Honored In The Wrong Way, For The Wrong Reasons?

Remembrance Day has passed and I feel it is time to ask what is up Canada and ask ourselves a few questions like:

  • (a) Why the Harper government and the news media have decided to redefine heroism?
  • (b) Why Canadians bought into it?
  • (c) why it was such a bad thing to do?

The Harper government did it for:

  • (a) political gain.
  • (b) a chance to push their snooping on innocent Canadians agenda.

The press went along with making these 2 tragic deaths heroic, because stories about heroes sell a lot of ads. 

The truth is that neither the death of  Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, or Cpl. Nathan Cirillo were  heroic  Their deaths were  acts of cowardly, senseless murder, committed by  deranged Canadians angry at the Harper government for refusing to let him travel and a whole slew of other things; tragic losses of life, but no act of heroism was involved.  Another truth is that neither Warrant officer Patrice Vincent, or Cpl. Nathan Cirillo were acknowledged as heroes in the eyes of the government, the branch of the military they served, by the press, or by their communities, before they were murdered, so what was the basis for them being made heroes after they were murdered? Surely it was not the fact that they were murdered, because people are senselessly murdered every day in Canada and they have not been considered heroes? Example, if being murdered by a deranged person is the criteria for heroism then why not the 5 RCMP officers ambushed and murdered in New Brunswick? Consider these facts:

  • (a) There was a  need to create and sustain a high level  of fear of Canadian Islamic radicalization throughout the country to justify Canada’s growing involvement in the war against ISIS.
  • (b) There was a need to convince Canadians that overriding the laws of privacy of this country was an acceptable price to pay for maintaining our way of life that Islamic terrorist both foreign and domestic were plotting to destroy on the internet and through acts of home grown terrorism.
  • (c) The murder of the 5 RCMP officers in Moncton just could not be used to achieve that goal by any stretch of the imagination and so they were of little political value to the Harper government and so were left as just tragic senseless losses of life?

No government outrage = no sustained news value = just another tragic senseless death; end of story.

Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent was run down by a car, while going about his personal business, not in the line of duty putting his life knowingly on the line to protect those around him, or anyone else.  Warrant Officer Vincent’s story got  ordinary news coverage and the normal responses to be expected coming from the government in these types of situations with no suggestion of heroism. Vincent Patrice’s family sought privacy,  his community acknowledged that he was a giving person always ready to lend a hand, but at no time referred to him as a hero, because I think that being a good person is just who Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent was and I do not think he considered himself a hero for doing what came natural for him to do and should be normal for every Canadian to do.  The sad fact is that the only reason the government and the press even bothered with the death of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent to the extent that it did was because the government realizing that the murderer had converted to Islam finally got its chance to link a death on Canadian soil of a Canadian soldier to home grown terrorist activity.

Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, was shot in the back while standing guard over the war memorial in Ottawa and never saw his murder who was later killed when he attacked  Center Block on Parliament Hill.  Cpl. Nathan Cirillo never went to guard that statue feeling that his life could be in danger, or that there was even a remote possibility that he would have to lay down his life to defend it. What Cpl. Nathan Cirillo was doing when he got shot in the back, was purely ceremonial.  I believe that both   Warrant Officer  Patrice Vincent and Cpl. Cirillo were killed, because the Harper government does not take care of its veterans in the way that they should and they (our mistreated, angry, mentally ill veterans)   have stopped committing suicide quietly and have decided to commit suicide in a more attention grabbing manner.

I think that Canadians have bought into this scheme of the Harper government’s to redefine the words hero and heroism, partially because:

  • (a) We were coming up to veteran’s day and were feeling  sensitive and extremely protective of our men and women in the military.
  • (b) We were desperately searching for anything that would justify our governments involvement yet another war on terrorism.
  •  (c) We were being brainwashed into believing that the government’s stated reasons for why we have to lose our rights to privacy are justified, by the never ending bombardment of government rhetoric being forced fed to us through our news media.
  • (d) It is easier to  give in and buy into the claims that there is a Canadian citizen who has been radicalized by Islamic terrorist around every corner, lurking ready to strike in every neighborhood, than to admit that we are doing nothing to help our veterans and their families to  fight for the help that they need and deserve, from this government and do what is necessary to stop the madness.
  • (e) We needed a reason to accept that we live in a country where they can have our passports revoked and refused the right to travel abroad, on the suspicion that we have or could be supporting ISIS or any other group the Harper government considers to be terrorists. It seems so much easier to go along with oppression in the beginning than it is to fight for our rights until democracy is lost along with our way of life and all that is left is fear and the madness.

What I think is wrong with what this government has done in terms of redefining the words hero and heroism  is that we have made being a hero to require no special act of valor, or anything note worthy that rises the person being referred to as a hero above that of anyone else. When a fireman sacrifices his life by running into a burning building to save another what will he or she be called now, or the soldier who throws himself/ herself on a grenade to save the lives of his, or her comrades?  What I feel is wrong is that the tragic deaths of these 2 men were used by the Conservative Party of Canada for 2 reasons and they were:

  • (a) to panic Canadians into giving up their right to privacy.
  • (b) to deflect the blame for the attacks away from themselves and place it squarely on the shoulders of ISIS and home grown radicalised Canadian terrorist.

Neither of these things are hard to achieve, because anything that is written, uttered, or expressed that suggest that the west needs to solve the root causes that encourage the growth in popularity and support for radical Islamist groups such as ISIS  and have young Canadians willing to join them, is considered pro ISIS.  To voice such an opinion  has had Justin Trudeau vilified by both the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, the NDP and in the news, the press as anti Canadian and not supportive of our military.  Any person expressing such views, or is known to have converted to Islam recently is viewed as needing to be watched, deemed to be an Islamic radicalized Canadian, until proved differently and considdered too dangerous to travel.  What is wrong with what this government has done in my opinion is that if the Conservative Party of Canada was not pushing to get their snooping bill into law the 2 men responsible for the deaths of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent  and Cpl. Cirillo would never have been labelled the dreaded, ‘terrorist’ and without the need of a terrorist to blame their ineptness on, there would have been no need for a hero. There would have been nothing in the press about it after the first day and both cases would have been recorded in history as murders, tragic loss of life, committed by deranged persons thought to have axe to grind with government.

In conclusion, angry veterans and their families are marching on Parliament Hill demanding that this government take care of them in terms of their health both physical and mental and help them in their transitions from military lives into that of civilian lives this government chooses to ignore them, preferring instead to throw numbers at them. How is it possible that while Canadian soldiers who have been injured while in the service of this country are being told that there is no money to keep their veteran’s Affairs offices and hospitals open, or give them the benefits they should be entitled to when for instance,

  • (a) the government found money to hold a big ceremony on the hill with helicopters landing on the lawn of parliament, marching bands and a jet fly by?
  • (b) under the current legislation, supplementary death benefits for soldiers are based on income — which means when a reservist (part-time) or full-time soldier dies on duty, their families are not compensated equally and yet the government has promised that Cpl. Nathan Cirillo’s family will receive the same benefits as the family of a full-time soldier.

I guess I could have said nothing and went along with Harper’s charade, but I just did not like that these tragic deaths were used by the Harper government for:

  • (a) political gain for the 2015 federal election.
  • (b) leverage to steal the privacy rights of all Canadians.

I believe that the men and women who serve our country so selflessly should receive all the support from their government that is possible to give to them and should not have to be considered ‘heroes’ by Stephen Harper and his government to get it.  There is good reason that metals of valour, distinguished crosses and other medals are not just given to all soldiers and I think that everyone knows why; if you know that why, then you know why this was not the right way to honor these 2 men and that the reasons were all wrong.

Julian Fantino Wants Frank Gervais Punished For Playing Dress Up?

What was the real reason for the follow up story again?

What was the real reason for the follow up story again?

What is up Canada? Have we digressed to such a state of low self esteem as a people that we would seek to ruin Frank Gervais’s life, because he has the harmless habit of dressing up as a decorated military person?  He has not donned the uniform in the pursuit of some dastardly, nefarious deed. I would  suggest to the press, military personnel and Veteran’s Affairs Minister Julian Fantino, that if Frank Gervais is guilty of anything it is respecting and honoring  Canadian paratroopers  to the point of hero worship , but not having what it takes to actually be one of them, perhaps fulfils that unrealised dream, by dressing up as one of them in public. Why would the powers that be even consider giving this man a criminal record with all that would entail, because he played dress up and has been doing so harmlessly for years, even dressing the part in his own wedding ceremony?  People dress up as things that they are not all the time, imitating soldiers and other military personnel at costume parties, theme events, Halloween parties and such and I am unaware of any politician, especially a Minister  of Veteran’s Affair’s in Canadian history ever calling for an investigation to be done by the police for harmless role playing, so why the sudden urge to publicly humiliate and ruin the life of Frank Gervais?

I do not think that Frank Gervais was out to harm anyone. Frank Gervais probably has a deeper respect and sense of gratitude for the what the military does for us and the sacrifices they make for us every day than the average Canadian. I do not think that Frank Gervais  could never conceive of disrespecting our men and women of our armed forces, whether they be living or dead. I saw no disrespect in what he did, but I have witnessed a lot of overreaction to what he did, based perhaps on the killings of  the 2 soldiers and the attack on Parliament Hill’s, Centre Block.  In my opinion for the Minister of Veteran’s Affairs, Julian Fantino to call for Frank Gervais’s actions to be  looked into by law enforcement authorities was political interference in police business and nothing more than political opportunism. This sorry excuse for a Minister of Veteran’s Affairs has in my opinion done more to dishonor  members of the military both living and dead with his, cuts to services for veterans and their families, his refusal to meet directly with veterans and their families to listen and discuss with them solutions to their concerns, than Frank Gervais could ever do by donning a military uniform, putting on a few medals he did not earn and pretending to be something he was not.

As for the press and news reporters who have in my opinion sensationalised this non story, I think that they should be ashamed of themselves.  Frank Gervais did not seek out the CBC reporter to give an interview, he was approached and when asked questions about how he was feeling that day answered them honestly and with what I thought showed a great respect for the military and what they do for this country.  I think that a better story for the CBC to investigate is why if it is so distasteful, disrespectable and is actually against the law for people to wear military uniforms and medals, why are army surplus stores allowed to sell them in the first place? Has this story been blown way out of proportion by the CBC and the rest of the press?  I think so. Was going to Frank Gervais house really necessary and what did going to Frank Gervais’s job accomplish other than to get him possibly fired?Was revenge the motive of the CBC and its reporter, because she felt that she had been made a fool of on national television by Frank Gervais? Is this really a frontline news story? I think not, but here we have it every day now front and center with all of the real important stories, because of a reporter scorned.

Is our respect for our veterans, both living and dead thought to be so easily shaken that we must make an example of this one man pretending to be a medal of honor paratrooper by taking away his lively hood, publicly humiliating him day after day on the news and ruining his life? If Frank Gervais were to lose his job, or he or a member of his family were to be harmed because of the way that this story has been covered by the media, would the honor of our vets be salvaged, or considered enough punishment for those who are seeking their pound of flesh, such as Minister of Veteran’s, Julian Fantino, the vets who gave interviews to CBC and all others who have expressed their outrage and Frank Gervais’s  role playing?

 I only ask, because I feel the way this story’s coverage was handled has been   fueling a rapidly growing public display of  anger and outrage toward Frank Gervais and his wife, who have already received death threats as a result of this story and whose location and work place have been made available to any crazy wanting to do the Gervais harm.

Has this story been blown way out of proportion by the CBC and the rest of the press?  I think so and I think it is becoming a bad habit of news agencies and their reporters to try and make a story out to be more than it is. Was going to this guys house and job really necessary? Is this really a frontline news story? I think not, but here we have it every day now front and center with all of the real important stories and I have to wonder what is up Canada?

What Of The 364 Days Leading Up To November 11th And What Of The 364 Days After The Last Public Ceremony Is Over?

What Of The 364 Days Leading Up To November 11th And What Of The 364 Days After The Last Public Ceremony Is Over?

What Of The 364 Days Leading Up To November 11th And What Of The 364 Days After The Last Public Ceremony Is Over?

Today let us remember those of our armed forces who have made the ultimate sacrifice be it in the great wars, or the new war on terror and say a prayer for their families who have had to learn to live without them.  I would also like to take this opportunity to say thank you to all of our men and women who are serving, or who have served in our armed forces and their families for the sacrifices they have had to endure on the battlefield abroad as they carried out the missions that this government sent them to do and on the battlefield they had to fight and die on once they returned to Canada. Our veterans have had to fight this government to get medical attention for injuries suffered while in the service of their country and fight everyday to get the  help necessary for them to transition from military life back into that of a civilian, because the Harper government sees them  as pawns whose only value is the votes they garner at election time. Remembrance Day, November 11th of every year is when the government gets to  portray itself as caring and respectful and grateful of our veterans sacrifices, in phony, meaningless, very expensive, public ceremonies. Public  displays of  phony gratitude waste money that could be spent  supporting our veterans in their hours of need, or to support their families after they passed on; the things this government claims there is just not enough money to do a better job at. I pray quietly for the day when our children, our young men will not feel that it is better to commit suicide rather than live another day in a Canada that they feel has forgotten them and has allowed them to be treated so poorly. I pray for the day when we never again see a veteran decide to take up arms against Canada in Canada like the  man who wanted to blow up a building housing veterans affairs offices because he  was so angry and disillusioned with his treatment by this government that ignored his pleas for help. The man is not able to be identified because of a court ordered publication ban said this,”I am wound up very tight, and yeah, I’m not doing well because of it.”  “It almost feels like Veterans Affairs is trying to manage my health as opposed to my doctors and specialists…. I’m looking for somebody to help me do what I normally do.”

What is up Canada? I am sorry but once again the government has proved that our veterans mean nothing to them and once again we as Canadians are guilty of doing nothing about it. This becomes obvious when you look at the over 400 page omnibus budget bill that does not mention the word veterans in it  even once in the entire bill.  Considering this government has been criticised by the disabled and sick veterans of the great war and their families as well as the injured,veterans and families of  the war on terror  one would think that the Harper government would have mentioned the veterans at least once in their budget bill, but the Harper government decided instead to continue to ignore the pleas and demands for support and help of those who have served this country so bravely,  choosing instead to rely on pomp and ceremonies to say thank you and spout politically charged rhetoric that does little to feed cloth educate and pay the bills of veterans and their families.  What keeps passing through my head today is that governments have proved experts at making war veterans, but have been found lacking on how to appreciate, look after and assist both the veterans and their families when they are no longer need, or can no longer serve.

I think that this government does not get the idea that if you want to minimize the amount of soldiers returning from a war injured and dead, then you must send them in with the best possible equipment, not refurbished old equipment that the government itself said needed to be put to pasture. Engaging in war cost a lot of money and if this government is going to keep engaging in it, then Stephen Harper cannot keep deciding that new military equipment cost too much with an election coming up in 2015 and that his promise to balance the budget that is looming over his head, must take priority over military procurements. Stephen Harper said that Canada needed to replace the CF-18 Hornets with the F-35 Fighter Jet, calling the CF-18 Hornets outdated and dangerous and yet there go our pilots flying missions over Iraq, fighting ISIS and the never-ending war against terrorism in those  out dated and dangerous CF-18 Hornets.

Since this government is not good at procuring military equipment, or it thinks that it is ok to send our military into battle with refurbished equipment one would think that at the government would have in place the best treatment hospitals and rehabilitation centers for those returning with battle type injuries both physical and mental, retraining facilities for those to badly injured in either circumstance to return to active duty, but sadly this has not proven to be the case with the Harper government.   I say this because we all know that the Harper government has been closing down veteran’s hospitals all over the country, turning veteran’s centers from places where veterans could talk to an agent in person and get help and direction from caring person who understood the sacrifices that they had made, to automated phone centers that were hard to get through to a real person and usually left the vet or family member talking to a cold machine that had no idea of the veterans sacrifice  and so could not care if the veteran was actually being helped or not whether our veterans are suffering from PTSD, a physical loss, or have paid the ultimate sacrifice they and their families can count on one thing and that is that the Harper government will not do a damn thing to help them or their families.

What they will get is a lot of speeches and perhaps a big show of helicopters landing on the parliament lawn, lots of marching bands, jet fighter flybys speeches by Stephen Harper and the Govern General about the valiant service to this country and how this country loves respect and appreciates what they have done for this country, but they will know that none of this will help to fit them back into society, put food on their families plates, a roof over their heads, or help pay the bills every month; they all will know that their sacrifices do not even cover their final move after leaving the service, or all of their burial expenses once they have finally succumbed to their injuries got defending this country. This is how our veterans are being treated by this government and this is how we allow them to be treated , choosing to go to our favorite spots once a year a pretend to give a damn laying flowers at the feet of metal and stone statues and saying prayers for those who no longer need them, can no longer hear them who would say to you if they could, “I needed your gratitude when I was alive, I could have used your help to get the government to help me and my family, God knows I could have used your compassion when I held out the cup begging for change to buy a cup of coffee as you looked at me with disgust as you walked by my sign that said I was a homeless and finally I could have used your prayers instead of your criticism and curses every time the government told you how much it cost to help my family and myself to survive in the new horrible reality of our life after war and service to our country.

Our veterans are the most selfless of Canadians and I think that if they could they would tell you that they forgive us all for not backing them up when they needed us the most and that they forgive the members of the government who made everything they did once back in Canada like fighting another war that they were not prepared for, if we would, or could see our way to making the life for the soldiers that are fighting for of this country right now, this countries veterans of tomorrow and their families better than what we did for them and theirs. I think that our veterans would forego all of the specifying, celebrations, parades and tearful ceremonies that they no longer see and hear, to know that their families are being taken care of now, not struggling to make ends meet and are not fighting the government they served bled and in some cases died for the right to live with dignity and to finally know peace and find comfort that their government has finally understanding that it is no good to honor once a year the dead and fallen heroes of our armed forces, if you do not value, respect, honor and help the living members of the armed forces during and after their service in the military and the families of both living and dead, every day of the year.

I pray for a day when it is no longer necessary to send our young men and women to far off lands to die for something our politicians and that of our foes think is important like oil, religion, or profit. I pray for a day that our government will put the needs of our armed forces personnel and their families before money and the health and welfare of our veterans ahead of balancing their budget. Finally I hope and pray that the veterans families know how much some of us respect, value and appreciate all that they as a family have  had to endure, the great sacrifices they have had to make as a family to keep us all safe  and  that we know that they need our continuing support and help and will never stop pushing until their needs are met. Some of us do know that Veteran’s Day is important as long as we do not forsake and dishonor the living left behind to pick up the pieces. (The families of our veterans) This is what I think that our veterans and their families, both living and dead would ask of us this day.

“Marry Out Move Out,” Is Grand Chief Michael Delisle Seeking Reconciliation Or Isolation?

We are not being racist! We are being forced to do racist things by  non native government rules and laws?

We are not being racist! We are being forced to do racist things by non native government rules and laws?

What is up Canada, why is it that political leaders feel that just because history has allowed them to get away with doing something wrong for a long time (The Canadian Government ignoring the treaties entered into with First Nations and Kahnawake’s, Marry Out Get Out law) that it is not incumbent of them to change with the times and do the right thing, because it is the right thing to do, rather than try to keep justifying their continued use of wrong actions using the negative deeds of  the past as prcedence to justify present day discrimination against others who have done them no wrong. Someone needs to tell the Grand Chief of the Kahnawake reserve that he cannot have it both ways. He can’t keep talking about the injustices of the Indian Act and how it needs to be scrapped totally out of one side of his mouth, while quoting from the  Indian Act the passage he feels justifies and legitimizes  his reasoning for evicting non natives from the homes they share with their native spouses based on racial discrimination. I believe to do so weakens the claim of all First Nations that they are seeking conciliation, rather than confrontation and isolation and makes the Grand chief at best a hypocrite and at the worst no better than the founding fathers of this country and every government that has governed Canada ever since. I believe in the adage that says that, “You cannot come to court with dirty hands.”

 If I were to suggest  to Michael Delisle, the  Grand Chief of the native reserve of Kahnawake that perhaps it is time to forbid all natives from leaving  their reserves for any reason, so that,

  • Natives and non natives need never again have to worry about inter mingling.
  • Native anti inclusive, non multi cultural, divisive and anti social ideologies would not be exposed to non native children and further add to the hate already infecting our society.

would this be okay with him, or would he rightly consider me just another ignorant racist person, who is part of the problem, rather than being part of a solution?

 If I were to suggest to Michael Delisle, the  Grand Chief of the native reserve of Kahnawake  that  all natives living off reserve should be rounded up wherever they are and forced back onto the reserve, because the non native society of Quebec can do without the extra burden  placed on it financially, because of  all the alcoholic and, drug addicted natives who live off reserve, living amongst  our non native alcoholic, drug addicts in order to reduce

  • The stress that natives living off of reserve are causing to our civic, provincial and federal budgets, because of their alcohol and drug abusive behavior that usually finds them in trouble with the law
  •  The  ever-increasing number of natives found living amongst our own non native homeless persons, who sleep and beg in our non native metros, streets and in our public parks.
  • The number of native women and girls who stand outside of  our non native bars willing to prostitute themselves for  a few beer and a bed to sleep in for the night.

would he feel that the reasons I just gave for rounding up all natives and forcing them back onto the reserve be considered  as  sound reasoning necessary to the survival and quality of life for the non native society of Quebec, or would I rightly be seen by him as an intolerant, ignorant person, looking for a reason to continue the hating and the blaming and the need to punish anyone even if it meant punishing the innocent, rather than a person seeking reconciliation?

I ask because non natives have laws making it illegal for a native to be refused anything based solely on the fact that they are a native. I grant that we have our racists too who just cannot and will not live together in harmony and true inclusiveness and who think that the races should be kept a part and blood lines kept untainted and pure for “survival reasons” and so the laws against discrimination are not always followed by some racist folk, but we non natives have the laws in place.  Grand Chief of the native reserve of Kahnawake, Michael Delisle needs to understand that in the non native world, there are no laws and therefore no penalties for marrying out of your race, working, owning property, or socializing off reserve even if some natives are alcoholic drug addicts. I guess we non natives are not  that afraid that our culture, language, religion and values could be threatened with extinction due to  marriages between native and non native people entered into for the sole reason of love.

I cannot believe in the 21st century Canada that natives on one hand could ask us non natives to help them  find their missing women and girls, join in their Idle No More protests, fight alongside them for their right to self governance and self-determination, would say to us non natives on the other hand that we are not good enough to marry their men and women and live amongst them, sharing in their culture and way of life. What kind of leader is Michael Delisle, that he would support a law that would deny his own people the right to choose whom they wish to marry, have children with and share their whole life with by supporting and promoting a racist, exclusionary and discriminatory law that stands to force families apart and evict non native spouses off of Kahnawake reserve, solely on the basis of race saying , “Marry out, move out?”

I guess there is always a good reason in some peoples minds and hearts for their exclusionary practices and mean-spirited laws, while they feel justified in complaining about the same things when it is them on the receiving end. Pauline Marois and her Charter of Quebec Rights and Values, or Stephen Harper and his Real Canadians  speech talking of saving Canada for real Canadians sharing the same  European culture, language and religion. In my opinion  in spite of all that they have been through in Quebec and Canada, Grand Chief of the native reserve of Kahnawake and most of his people have learned nothing about the fate awaiting those who would practice, bigotry and intolerance in the name of survival.

Michael Delisle  has just swatted a hornets nest and might find that the price to pay for engaging in a racist, isolating and divisive manner comes with a hefty price tag.  He claims that non natives can live anywhere they want, but his band is forced to live on a small reserve, but the last time I looked natives can live anywhere they choose to, go to school anywhere they choose to, work anywhere they choose to, own property anywhere they choose to and seek medical assistance etc., in our non native towns and cities? Now I have always supported First Nations in their right to self-determination as all post up to this one have shown, but I have also shown my distaste for racism, no matter who is doing the hating.  I am no supporter of reverse discrimination, or racism no matter what the justification for it is said to be.  This kind of behavior is not working for Stephen Harper, did not work for Pauline Marois and will not work for Grand Chief Michael Delisle either.  I would like to continue to support First Nations in their struggle to overcome the many hurdles that they are still facing, but do not want to be supportive of a racist culture of exclusion based solely on race. I hope that Grand Chief Michael Delisle will rethink his position and remove this clearly racist, discriminatory law. Is this what the right to self governance and self-determination is all about for all First Nations? I hope not, because I as a non native supporter of First Nations do not want to be supporting over 600 separate governments within Canada that have apartheid  type laws, policies and ideologies.

This Is What Happens When You Give A Fawning Sycophant A Majority Government In Canada

We elected a prime minister who behaves more like the fawning sycophant Chester than like the prime minister of a independent government of a sovereign nation.

We elected a prime minister who behaves more like the fawning sycophant Chester than like the prime minister of an independent government of a sovereign nation.

What is up Canada? Stephen Harper promised Canadians that he would change Canada so much that Canadians would no longer be able to recognise their own country and I think that he unfortunately delivered on it. I think that Stephen Harper is and never was a proud Canadian, had no respect for Canadian law, or Canadian core values. I do not think any Canadian old enough to vote can say that this is the same Canada that Canadians and all nations of the world used to admire, trust and even envy. Written in this post are some of what I believe we used to be and how we were thought of, but  now have lost due to the changes to the very core of what it was to be a Canadian.  Canada used to be one of the only trusted players in the game of international affairs and we blew it, because Canada’s Chester (Stephen Harper), who shortly after being elected with a majority government, began  surrendering our sovereignty to his hero the USA; because the USA was so big and strong.

Thanks to Stephen Harper, Canada can no longer lay claim to being a fair-minded and neutral seeker of peaceful solutions; a supporter of only solutions  that are arrived at via the negotiation table with all stake holders present and participating, because Canada in my opinion is no longer neutral, or fair-minded.

  • Under the absolute rule of Stephen Harper Canadians will no longer going to be allowed to think, or speak any sentiments that are not in keeping with the governments point of view on the internet, especially where those views are contrary to what the government feels about Israel, or Christianity.
  • The new law fails to address the hateful views being espoused about Muslims and their faith, allowing them to be fair game. I believe that the law in spite Harper will protect Muslims if things get too far out of hand, but Stephen Harper has ensured with his laws that they will be forced to  just understand that: (a) It is members of their faith that are the terrorists. (b) That is just too hard to distinguish between the good Muslims and the bad Muslims, since the good Muslims refuse to cast of their religious garb. (c)They will of course be expected to be patient and understanding while the government stops them from traveling. (d) That it is they who the government will be targeting with their online and digital snooping laws. (e)Finally it is Muslims that will be asked to understand and be patient while they are insulted on the street, attacked on public transit and go through all manner of racial denigration., because this government has decided to make every person with or without mental issues, committing a violent acts against private citizens, security force members, or politician a  radicalized Canadian in the service of an either ISIS or another group it considers to be terrorists.
  • Under the governance of Stephen Harper Canada has unfortunately made it clear through his government’s rhetoric, policies, laws and actions that Canada is no longer interested in continuing in its historically respected  role as a peace broker, but has surrendered to the will of it allies to commit itself to the war against terrorism through the taking military actions on the behalf of those countries it supports, or sees as being important to itself and it allies strategically, or economically. Canada has joined its allies who decided long ago that the way to settle international disputes is not at the negotiating table, but instead preferring to use sanctions, embargoes and a show of military force instead. Embargoes and sanctions serve no other purpose then to achieve through a siege, one-sided unfair agreements that cannot be achieved through what used to be normal diplomatic channels.  As a nation through this government, we have chosen to ignore the suffering that is caused to the innocent people of the countries we are helping to put under siege and spout rhetoric to all who will listen about the importance of  saving  innocent lives unable to share in our values, preaching about the importance of bringing our beliefs and values to the non civilised world; in short what we are saying is that we have found some new savages to civilize, through rape and pillage and total assimilation to our way of life. Our government knows that a siege is designed to deprive a nation of their ability to provide for its people the  amenities of life needed for every day survival(food, medicine and other supplies) until the leader of the country under siege surrenders; but Canada does it anyway. I cannot see how anyone  would not see a siege for what it is which is a deliberate attempt to sabotage a country’s economy, undermine its legitimate government and  strip it of its sovereignty, under the guise of negotiations aimed at achieving a fair outcome for both sides of the dispute. How can Canada still lay claim to always seeking peaceful non violent solutions to problems when the first thing we do now under Harper rule is close down embassies in our country and abroad every time a tough dispute arises between a country will value as an ally, or asset with one we feel we do not have a lot or anything in common with?
  • Canada once considered country who had a conscience and a set of values of its own under the rule of Stephen Harper looks more like a cowardly bully, who will only stand up for what it believes in if the enemy is weaker militarily than it is, or if allies suggest it contribute to the struggle. Stephen Harper is quick to send Canadian military advisors, Canadian fighter jets to kill people with missiles and bombs into countries like Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, but like its allies are afraid to act with its military might in situations like: (a)The Ukraine vs. Russia conflict where Russia actually annexed Crimea a part of the sovereign Ukraine and is supporting financially and militarily the dismantling of Ukraine’s sovereignty as a nation by pro-Russian rebels. (b) The Hong Kong vs. China conflict where the free will of the people to vote in fair democratic elections is being denied them by the government of Hong Kong with the support of main land China and has the possibility of escalating into another Tiananmen Square. (c) No military intervention to end once and for all the constant instability in the world that the North Korea vs. South Korea conflict is causing. North Korea has actually threatened the USA and its allies and yet they have not been labeled terrorists as far as I know and the western alliance of which Canada is a member refuses to take action against it militarily.
  • It would seem that the only countries the Western Alliance is interested in fighting is those with a predominantly Muslim population; followers of the Islamic faith and that makes us now not only cowards something we could never be accused of before, but racist in our reasoning as well.
  • As I said earlier when I think of Canada and its relationship with the USA  I am reminded of the relationship between Looney Tune’s  cartoon characters “Spike and Chester”.  In this cartoon  a little dog named Chester would scamper around a big bulldog named Spike saying, “Can we Spike, huh, can we?” Spike would end up back handing little Chester, sending him reeling backwards. getting up visibly shaken Chester would say,” Spike is my hero, because he is so big and strong. “
  • Canada under the leadership of Stephen Harper has become a country only willing to stand up for human rights and freedoms abroad where it can be assured victory with little cost and where there is some economical or strategic benefit and only if instructed to do so by its allies.

Canada used to be the envy of the world for the rights and freedoms that all Canadians used to enjoy, respected for our values and sense of justice and loved for our generosity and compassion,  but I believe that thanks to Stephen Harper, that all of those things  are no longer true when talking of Canada.

  • Under the leadership of Stephen Harper the very fabric of this countries democracy and democratic processes have been made a mockery of and changed, in order to (a) enacting laws that removed any oversight that was put in place as a mechanism to ensure that the government’s executive powers did not overstep their bounds. (b)changing the way one can prove their eligibility to vote in federal elections in a deliberate  move to impede the ability of all Canadians eligible to vote to do so. (c) through what it calls its Fair Elections Act, remove any power the head of Elections Canada had to ensure that the government held fair elections and adhered to the rules, or was punished.
  • Stephen Harper only protects Christians and Jewish people in his laws against hate as is proven in legislation that he and his government draft and the speeches given by  his MP’s and ministers when talking about new legislation to prevent the ability of those on the internet from inciting hatred for Israel, Jews and Christians going as far as to seek arrest and prosecution for those actions, but no mention of penalties for inciting Islamophobia, or the hatred of any other culture, religion or ethnicity, for example. This is not this simply an oversight, this is in my opinion is intentional racism and what would never have happened pre Stephen Harper. When government made laws in the past concerning racism and hate crimes, it did not single out specific groups for special protection we included all groups in the umbrella of the protection.
  • We used to be compassionate as a nation helping those in distress from natural disasters and welcoming of refugees fleeing certain death in their own countries, but of late under the harper government is to discourage refugees from fleeing here and have put in place laws to imprison them should they arrive by sea. (This is a direct attack on fleeing Muslims as it is they in reason times who have been using this mode of transportation and it is they who this law was designed and implemented to deter).  If this is not bad enough Stephen Harper and his government are putting forward a law that would permit the provinces to deny refugees Welfare. How they are supposed to survive while they learn the language and get accustomed to where they now live is beyond me and seems rather mean-spirited at the least and not at all in keeping with our historical compassion and generosity.

It was interesting to see public Safety Minister, Steven Blaney, pretend that we all misunderstood him when he accused the Ottawa shooter of being a terrorist in league with ISIS, telling a reporter asking him why he called the shooter a terrorist, to look up the meaning of terrorist in the dictionary.  This is why I do not trust this government, but more importantly why I believe that this government has betrayed all Canadians and turned away from our core values and turned us into some kind of hateful Nazi like puppets. I know, how dare I say such a thing, but remember very soon in Canada I could be arrested for terrorism, being a terrorist sympathizer, found guilty without my accusers evidence going before a judge, tried in secret and sentenced to jail, by the government and its security agencies for daring to post this on the internet. The Nazis of Germany used the same tactics against the European Jews and look what happened when the people believed in the rhetoric and allowed the fear mongering of politicians make the accomplices in the deaths of over 6 million innocent Jewish men, women and children. Dare we compare us to them?

  • The government has decided to blame everything wrong with this country on radical Islamic thoughts and deeds whether they are born of real radicalization, or of some Canadian so displeased and feeling so trapped with no way out decided to act out violently against the government, or commit suicide in an effort to vent their anger and draw attention to a series of problems that they feel are being ignored and is hurting all Canadians.
  • The government is asking children to spy on their parents and their parents to spy on them as well as asking neighbor to spy on neighbor and then report anything they find to be suspicious activity to security officials.  This all to me sounds more like Nazi Germany, then the Canada that I grew up in.
  • The government is asking that their special police,(CSIS and the RCMP) be able to arrest and detain certain citizens based on suspicion of doing something wrong, or on a hunch that they intend to doing something wrong, without having the required proof to lay charges.
  • The government wants informants of CSIS never to enter a court room, or go before a judge to validate their accusations and so the accused does not get to face their accuser and could possibly end up deported, in jail, only to find out that the person doing the snitching had a grudge against the accused, or was coerced in some manner by the security agencies to give false evidence, was offered a deal by the government to collaborate evidence to get rid of a potentially aggravating, or embarrassing problem that a government would like to go away.
  • The government has decided to turn husband against wife and wife against husband, by forcing them to testify against one another with no regard for the impact this will have on marriages and relationships in Canada.
  • The government has decided to cease passports based on hunches rather than proof that would stand up in a court of law.
  • The government has decided to restrict the travel of Canadian citizens that it deems to be too dangerous to travel, without proof enough to lay charges that would stand up in a court of law.
  • The government has stated that it will punish radicalized Canadians who are going abroad to fight on the behalf of  others, such as what the government considers radical Islamic extremists or terrorists with jail time, possibly loss of citizenship and deportation, but does this apply to Canadian Jews who could be considered radicalized in some cases going abroad to fight for Israel in the Israeli army, or raising money to aid and abet anti Islamic thoughts of hatred, calling for the death of all Muslims, or is this law focussed solely on Muslims and those who would fight in their behalf. I remember Canadian Greeks going back to Greece to fight against the Turks, in today’s Canada would those Greeks be considered radicalized and punished?

In my opinion to get around all of this action it has already been caught doing illegally, this government has decided to do what it does anytime it is doing something illegal and unconstitutional; this government changes the law to support their position without benefit of meaningful debate, or consideration of it constitutionality so that innocent people are caught up in the political and judicial war, having their lives torn apart for years, only to be proven innocent, but with no way to seek legal remedy, or compensation, for all that was taken from them by the government.

There was a time not so long ago before Stephen Harper and his strong, stable, majority Conservative government came to power that:

  • Canadians could travel the world without fear of being attacked by anyone, because Canadians were loved and respected.
  • Canada never had to worry about home-grown terrorists, or terrorists attacks from abroad, because  Canada did not commit terrorist attacks in other countries prior to Stephen Harper.
  • Prior to Stephen Harper Canada donated its foreign aid with no strings attached. instead of only offering aid to those who can repay in some fashion, like trade deals, giving up their water rights or rights to other natural resources, like is the policy now. Canada used to welcome refugees instead locking them up in jail. In short Canada used to be to valuable as a friend to ever consider making an enemy of.
  •  Prior to Stephen Harper things like health care, homelessness and other domestic concerns relating to poverty took priority over balancing budget and although things were not perfect Canadians thought that they were being not only heard but that their basic needs were being met and when they were not that when they voiced their discontent that they were not ignored and their needs became the governments priority.
  • Prior to Stephen Harper killing one’s own soldiers, or taking up arms against one’s own country was considered treason, not terrorism.

I do not know if going back to our old Canada is a possibility anymore, but I think that we have got to try, because it some ways we were the sanity in all of the chaos; the light at the end of the tunnel for a lot of countries facing seemingly insurmountable problems. I think that Canada used to be one of the only trusted players in the game of international affairs and we blew it, because we elected a prime minister Spike’s, Chester, who surrender our sovereignty to his hero, because he was so big and strong and has been getting slapped by Spike ever since.  If there is to be any consolation it is that Chester one day does become the hero when Spike is proven to be not so brave, but merely an untested, untried bully.