Archive

Archive for the ‘Government’ Category

Nothing Changes Exclutionary Politics To Continue Under Newly Elected Conservative Party Leader Andrew Sheer


The Conservative Party of Canada’s leadership race has been decided. Andrew Sheer edged out perceived front-runner Maxime Bernier. A vote for  Maxime Bernier was considered to be a vote for change and 49.05% of Conservatives members voted for that change.  A vote Andrew Sheer was considered a vote for a softer approach and sell to the Harper vision of Conservatism, 50.95% of Conservative membership voted for that option.

What this means is that:

  • nothing will change of any substance in Conservative Party policy, or vision except the delivery;
  • at the end of the day this party will be the same anti Muslim immigration party it was under Stephen Harper’s Party;
  • the Conservative Party remains the same ideologically driven party that it was under the leadership of Stephen Harper;
  • there is a lot of Conservative members that are not onside with Andrew Sheer.

With the exception of two candidates those who vied for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada were the same people who:

  • failed to get one pipeline approved in the USA;
  • failed to get the soft wood lumber issue settled even though Canada won its case in court;
  • forced workers back to work with legislation, giving the workers less in terms of what they were seeking than what they were offered in arbitration;
  • suspended diplomatic relations with Iran, expelling Iranian its diplomats from Canada overnight for no apparent justifiable reason;
  • threatened to cut off aid to the Palestinians if they attempted to take Israel to court over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity;
  • attempted to sell Canadian foreign aid for future trade considerations;
  • closed veteran’s hospitals all over the country;
  •   shut down veteran’s affairs offices all over the country;
  • refused to talk to veterans and the families of veterans;
  • refused to talk to veterans and First Nations and gagged Canadian scientists;
  • cared so little about the safety of the men and women who serve in our military that they removed life saving features from the contract with Sikorsky to build Canada’s Maritime Military Helicopter (The 30-minute run-dry capability.  The ability to secure the helicopter’s ramp in various positions during flight. Crew comfort systems during extreme temperature operations. Unobstructed hand and foot holds for technicians to conduct maintenance.  The ability to self-start in very cold weather. – Cockpit ergonomics factors.  A system to automatically deploy personnel life rafts in emergency situations.);
  • were responsible for the F-35 fighter Jet, Chinook, 7.6B Cyclone Maritime Helicopter, close combat vehicle fiascos;
  • prorogued parliament four times and shut down debate at least 100 times, both more than any other government in Canadian history;
  • supported a Prime minister of Canada who refused to take part in first ministers conferences.(This means that Stephen Harper, refused to talk directly to the leaders of the provinces and territories about the concerns and needs of their provinces face to face);
  • who agreed with Prime Minister Harper when he referred to real Canadians as those Canadians who share European culture, heritage, values and religion.

The Conservative Party of Canada is the same old tired Conservative Party promoting the same old divisive and racist policies.  Andrew Sheer while waiting for the next election will:

  • spew hate filled rhetoric  and  visceral with a smile instead of a frown;
  • crack down on freedom of expression, religion, and rights guaranteed to all Canadians under the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with a smile instead of a frown;
  • talk about what he feels are Trudeau’s bad policies and decisions, instead of promoting and declaring his parties own position and policies.
  • knock his positive approach to things, while promoting negativity, pessimism and fear of what the future holds
  • knock Trudeau’s charisma, to try to make his boring self look good.

When Stephen Harper became the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada the party advisors tried very hard to make him look approachable. He was made to serve at BBQ’s, scheduled to do more televised interviews. At the end of the day Harper could only look like what he was a cold calculating person, whose main goal politically was to literally remove the Liberal Party and all that it had accomplished from the face of Canadian politics. In the federal election of 2015 it became clear that Canadians had enough of Stephen Harper’s dictatorship like style of governance. The anyone but Stephen Harper campaign not only denied Stephen Harper his political priority, but swept Justin Trudeau into office with a majority government. Was electing a Stephen Harper clone a wise move with just two years to go until the next federal election?

I do not think that Andrew Sheer is going to fool anyone outside of his base supporters and party members with his smile that the federal Conservative Party has changed, or grown, anymore than Stephen Harper did serving burgers.   A leopard cannot change his spots and even if it were possible just this once, they did not even try.

  • Andrew Sheer will have a hard way to go trying to keep his party together as the divides are great. immigration, abortion, gay rights, back bencher inclusion are all sticking points.
  • Andrew Sheer is as boring as Justin Trudeau is charismatic.
  • Andrew share wants to continue with old policies that cost the Conservatives the last federal election.
  • Andrew Sheer is predictable.

If the purpose of choosing a new leader was to convince Canadians that:

  • this was a fresh thinking political party, they have failed;
  • they now had a leader that defeat Justin Trudeau in 2019,they have failed;
  • they are still the same old arrogant, out of touch with Canadians party that cost them the last election, they have succeeded.
Advertisements

“Give Me A Child Until He/She Is Seven, And I Will Give You The Man/Woman”


me.jpg2I have always loved every minute that I share with my children and grandchildren, but there is something extra special about the time we share from the time they are born and I get to hold them in my arms for the 1st time until they reach the age of approximately  8 years old.  Perhaps I feel this way because I know that this is a  magical time in their lives when they are learning and absorbing everything around them. I believe that what and who they become as a human being, begins with what and how well they are taught during this time. The rights and wrongs of things, what is to be considered acceptable behavior and non acceptable as well as tolerance for those who are different from them; none of this is given to them instinctively; it must be taught to them and it is our duty as parents to decide what goes into our children’s heads, not some stranger or government official.

How is it then that we as parents who are so careful not to allow our little ones to put something into their mouths that could hurt them like bleach or other toxic chemicals,  make them hold our hands when they cross the street so they do not get hurt by cars, and discourage them from talking to strangers lest they become too trusting and  become easy prey for pedophiles and kidnappers, will allow religious leaders, school teachers, politicians and any other stranger with a degree or government position to fill their head with hate, fear, prejudice, mistrust and all the other toxic trash?

Children have a way of bringing what is really important in life to the fore front without even trying to. Their bight eyed innocence, their joy of life and the fascination with everything around them, not only makes me feel better physically and emotionally, but triggers a protectiveness, a gentleness and a renewed sense of purpose. I think that their innocence and trust in us unconditionally  gets lost as our children grow into adults and rely on our opinions and advice less and less.  That todays parents are willing to give this great joy and this their responsibility and duty up without even a fight, frightens me.

I believe that the ease at which todays parents have relinquished all that is important in the social, spiritual and moral nurturing of their children to authority figures outside of the immediate family is something more scary, more dangerous, more costly and more apt to adversely  influence and negatively impact the future of  Canada,  than:

  1.  What the government of Canada calls the radicalization of  Canadian children by Islamic Jihadi terrorists.
  2. A loss of European culture, language and religion.
  3.  Having a too generous an immigration system.

There is no better person in my opinion in a position than a parent to teach their children about morality vs. immorality, tolerance vs. intolerance, equality vs. inequality, religious freedom vs. non religious freedom, because they are the ones who live those realities in the real world in real-time every day of their lives and not in some revisionist, ideological world.  Yet Canada is about teaching this country’s history a revisionist way. This inability to tell the truth in my opinion renders the government and it representatives and co-conspirators incapable of teaching  morality vs. immorality, tolerance vs. intolerance, equality vs. inequality, religious freedom vs. non religious freedom to our own children, lest the truth be known and the government be made a liar and the very fabric that is professed to make this country so great begin to fray and fall apart.  Perhaps this is why Canada along with the provinces has chosen to make the adding of certain historical facts to  one’s own children’s home education, or any variation to the school curriculum by an honest teacher illegal, punishable by monetary fines or in some cases even  jail time.

Whether or not it is the state who takes it away, or we voluntarily give it up the right to teach our children our values, our choice of religion, language and culture is to prepare our children to live in a police state, devoid of even the most basic of human rights. It is to prepare them to accept that it is the government that knows what is best for them and that the best way to get along is to forget what it is them as individuals and do what is right for  all Canadians  that to be determined by the state to and what your role will be in it

I believe the Jesuits axiom that boasts, “give me a child until he is seven, and I will give you the man,” but I believe in this day and age that in Canada the boast takes in  all Canadian children, no matter the gender, race or religious affiliation of the child. Believing as I do, I have to ask, what is up Canada? How could we as Canadian parents  give up control of what our children are taught about equality, tolerance of others and all things moral to the government of Canada which continues a long disgraceful history of  racial, religious and cultural intolerance and inequality? How could we have allowed and continue to allow the government of Canada to teach our children

  1. A false history of this country?
  2. That the racism, theft and murder in Canada’s past and present time was and is nothing to be ashamed of and therefore none of our laws and policies in this regard are in need of change or abolishment?
  3. That war with all of its horrors is the solution to achieve peace and democracy throughout the world?

Why are Canadian parents losing a skill that is instinctively inherent in most adult animals on this planet to  prepare one’s offspring to become healthy,  successful adults?  Why is this no longer the ‘raison d’être’ of every person choosing to become a parent?

The federal government and the provincial governments of Canada and the church have worked tirelessly to convince Canadian parents  that:

  • when and how to  discipline our children is best decided by the law makers and theologians based on evidence gathered through data gathered from professionals such as teachers, guidance councillors, social workers and psychologists and religious leaders, all of who may or may have not been parents rather than letting you and I decide what is right or wrong for our children’s upbringing and welfare.

Finally we accept as parents that we are neither capable or worthy to be our own children’s role models and so sit by on our butts and demand that celebrities not remotely related to our children the like entertainers, movie stars and sports stars stop living their lives in the manner that they choose and conduct themselves in a manner that provides our children the proper example of how to conduct themselves and be a productive member of society. Parents such as those I spoke of above were so enraged that Tiger Woods affair with hookers would negatively impact how their children’s behavior and respect for women in a way that they were powerless to stop as merely parents, that they demanded that Tiger Woods’s be made an example of by not only the sport, but his sponsors as well.

Providers of shelter, clothing and food is what is left of today’s parenting responsibilities from times gone by and the enforcing of governmental values as if they were better than your own and not the whims of ordinary men and women such as ourselves. What our children are taught to believe is changing the world. Whether or not that change is for the good of mankind, or its destruction is being decided right now in the minds and hearts of your children. Don’t let the government take that responsibility from you, or hand it off to strangers, because none of them are in a better position than you to decide what is best for your children , or the world for that matter, than you all of us being human.  You as a parent owe this to your children, yourself and  to the world!

The World Lost Its Humanity A Long Time Ago, Paris Was Just Another Reminder Of How Far We Have Fallen


me.jpg2I think that the world has never recovered from the USA’s dropping of an atomic bomb (nuclear weapon) on the civilians of Hiroshima and 3 days later having had time to reflect on the senseless loss of life that their actions had caused, returned with their bombers and dropped another atomic bomb on the civilians of Nagasaki and got away with it.  I think that mankind allowing the USA to get away with the murder of all of those innocent people set the tone for what was going to be considered acceptable civilian loss of life in war, or justifiable collateral damage when using the  excuse of self defense.  The lack of political will to punish the USA after World War 2 prepared the way for the final dark steps needed for man to take that would see the end of  mankind’s final slide down the slippery slope of man’s inhumanity to man that could end in his own  self annihilation. That not one American leader has ever faced a charge related to war crimes, or crimes against humanity has in my opinion set the tone and precedent for the horror we see today in Paris and all over the world.

The USA makes claims to be sorry for their actions, but since they dropped those bombs and got away with they have built up their arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and have used them as a threat to pressure and bend the world to their will.  The USA has put into action an arms race that I believe can only result in catastrophe and the end of life on this planet as we know it, literally.   All you hear in answer to why the use of such deadly force when talking to world leaders is, “We are just defending ourselves like the USA does.”

No sane person can condone the type of attack that the people of Paris, France was subjected to at the hands of ISIS. This was indeed a cowardly act meant to spread fear and I feel is in retaliation for the many deaths and vast destruction that the American led alliance is inflicting on them with their none stop bombing runs.  That so many innocent civilians were killed and seriously injured in the Paris attack was a sin before anyone’s God, but to pretend that it was unprovoked and was not in retaliation for what France is doing in Syria is a misrepresentation of the truth and moves the world no closer to finding a solution that does not include more senseless death.

   For France’s president to pretend that his country was not already at war with ISIS and make claims that the attacks on France was a declaration of war has me wondering a few things like,

  1. Just why France’s jets were bombing in Syria in the 1st place if France was not at war with ISIS.
  2. If France thought that conducting bombing runs over the sovereign territory of Syria without the permission of the Syrian government constituted an act of war against Syria and ISIS?
  3. How the president of France justifies bombing  Syria in an attempt to destroy ISIS is not an act of war against either, but an attack on its homeland by ISIS was?

I do not understand why everyone in the media, the government of France and the member states of the American led Western Alliance are shocked that France was attacked.  I guess I do not understand the depth of western arrogance that allows for the member states of the Western Alliance to continue to think that,

  1. No matter what atrocities we commit in times of war that we are still to be considered the civilised world and our enemy is somehow inferior to us and are to be considered the uncivilised ones.  I feel that it is this wrong vision of what is considered to be the actions of civilised nations that leads to the lack of respect and priority that is brought to bear when dealing with the concerns Muslims nations in a respectful way that could possibly avert and even stop what obviously certain factions within the Muslim world consider the only way they can get the west’s attention and show them what it feels like to be hunted and killed in your own country by those with no real authority and permission to be there.
  2. That we can control and manipulate war in such a fashion that we pick the battle field, we pick who dies and we pick what weapons that are to be used, even if our enemies do not have any of the weapons chosen.
  3. That only we who belong to the civilised world have the right to not only brag and gloat about hunting down and assassinating leaders of sovereign nations and those we feel are terrorists, but even the slightest acknowledgement of what is the driving force behind ISIS’s attacks that differs from that of the USA led coalition is considered suspect and treason and could get you arrested as a terrorist sympathizer or home grow radicalized person.

I am dismayed by what actions that France and the rest of the Western Alliance have threatened to take as a direct result of the Paris attack and what actions have not even been talked about such as,

  1. Talk about escalating the intensity and the merciless indiscriminate violence by France and the USA led coalition that up to now has done nothing to stop ISIS or terrorist attacks in the countries like France.
  2. Showing pictures of the dead, which only serve the escalation of Islamophobia in coalition member states. I find it ironic that when over 1,000 Palestinian children were killed by Israel in a couple of weeks not one picture went up telling of the loss of those children’s family, but instead came the reaffirming of Canada’s unconditional support of Israel and its right to defend itself.
  3. Zero talk about trying to find out what are the root causes of these types of attacks.
  4. Zero talk from now prime minister Trudeau about the need to find out the root causes that provide the environment for groups like ISIS to come into existence in the first place and what makes them so attractive that our own Canadian born youth are drawn to them and are so easily radicalized by them. I am saddened that he chose to spit out the same political rhetoric as the previous government instead of holding true to his  beliefs and convictions he publicly stated when he was in 3rd party leader in the House of Commons and not the yet prime minister with a majority status in the House of Commons.

Considering all that has led up to the Paris attack and all that has transpired after it I believe that both sides have learned nothing from all of the senseless deaths and are now poised to drag the entire world into the 3rd world war that I truly believe will either destroy the world to a point where all of this becomes moot and survival of the human race will become the people of the world’s only priority, or bring forth a new species to be the caretaker of the earth, one without the petty prejudices and need to feel superior that are doing such a lousy job at the present time.  I think that there is more at stake this time around than human values, religious freedoms and the right to self-determination.  What I think is at stake this time is man’s very existence and somehow I do not see man coming out of this in very good shape. Think about it the strongest most powerful nation in the world has placed itself above international law.  How far do I think the USA is prepared to go when it comes to war and getting what it wants? I do not have to guess, I just have to go back a short time in history and see how the USA responded to Japans attack on a USA military installation to see what lies ahead for the world, but in case you have forgotten let me refresh your memory of what this civilised nation proved that it is willing to do to win.

  • On August 6, 1945, during World War II (1939-45), an American B-29 bomber dropped the world’s first deployed atomic bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The explosion wiped out 90 percent of the city and immediately killed 80,000 people; tens of thousands more would later die of radiation exposure. Three days later, a second B-29 dropped another A-bomb on Nagasaki, killing an estimated 40,000 people

   What will it take this time for them to launch such an attack on those they believe to be the uncivilised people of the world?

When the USA 1st decided to get involved in this quagmire of yet another never-ending war I remember Barrack Obama saying something to the effect that he knew that there would be no solution reached that would last using violence and yet there has been nothing else but violence by both sides and no meaningful attempts made to get both sides to the negotiating table. There have been talks without one side at the table as is par for the course when the Western Alliance is negotiating anything a regime change in a sovereign nation by military force as they did in Iraq. No country in the Western Alliance would allow for some other country to force a regime change on them no matter how justified the other country was in demanding it and yet the Western Alliance members states seem confused and angry that Syrian president refuses to step down and offer himself up to be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Will the USA offer up George W. Bush Jr. to face his war crimes and crimes against humanity? Will the USA force Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu to resign and offer himself up to face the war crimes and crimes against humanity that he has committed and that he is still committing? I do not think so, but if the answer ever becomes yes then I might be inclined to say that they have a right to demand such a thing of another country’s leader in the interest of world order and justice.

Note:

  • We the “civilised people of the world” can always find a way to justify our heinous acts and have sought, expect and demanded forgiveness for them, or simply rewrote history to make ourselves the adventurous hero fighting to bring civilisation to the “savages, or the uncivilised people of the world; the fact that they did not want to be civilised did not matter much, because refusal of assimilation meant annihilation, ask the aboriginal peoples of North America, if you think that I lie.
  • Germany murdered 6 million innocent Jewish men, women and children in gas chambers and conducted scientific experiments on hundreds of thousands of others and blamed it on the Nazi’s as if they were another race of people.
  • Israel killed in one set of battles over 1,000 innocent Palestinian children, but insists that they are not to be blamed for defending themselves and all of the so called civilised countries of the world supported them and agreed.
  • Canada being the worst of these, declaring their unconditional support for Israel’s murdering of innocent children and intentional targeting places where civilians had trying to find safe haven like United Nations Hospitals which were clearly marked and all knew about. Civilised Canada further proved its unconditional support for Israel by trying to interfere with a case the Palestinians were trying to get heard before the world court in which the Palestinians were alleging that Israel was guilty of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity against them.  Canada fearing that if the case was accepted that indeed Israel stood a good chance of losing decided to interfere and get the Palestinians to withdraw their case on Israel’s behalf.   Civilised, law-abiding Canada did this by threatening to withdraw much-needed and depended financial and other humanitarian support given to the Palestinian’s if they continued with their case. In other words withdraw your case and forget that Israel killed over a 1,000 of your children and bombed hospitals or we will cut off your humanitarian aid. ” Bravo Canada?” Are these things mentioned above how civilised and law-abiding nations behave?

All this for me makes Paris look like nothing more than par for the course in a world that  lost its humanity  a long ago.

Defeating ISIL Will Be A Hollow Victory Indeed, If The Price To Be Paid Is The Loss Of Canada’s Democracy Or Worse At Its Own Hand


me.jpg2In Canada being ignorant of the law is no excuse for breaking it.  This rule applies to all Canadians including the government.  This means that if you break a law that you do not know about this will not stop you from being arrested for said crime, because it your duty as a Canadian citizen to keep reasonably informed and up to date about the laws that you live under. If you are planning to do something in business for example and you are not sure of the laws governing the legality of you are considering, you are required to seek out professional legal advice to ensure that you are not in violation of any laws of Canada before you begin whatever venture you are considering getting involved in. So I would ask what is up Canada with this strong, stable majority Conservative government’s inability to understand either Canadian or international law, or their out right refusal to adhere to either one?

I ask this  because in my opinion the Conservative Party of Canada which has a majority government and holds a majority in the senate believes that neither body of laws applies to them.  They have repeatedly forced through laws that will not pass constitutional mustard, because they violate the both the international safe guarded rights of all citizens of the world as well as the constitutional rights of  all Canadians. These court battles not only represent billions of wasted tax payer wasted dollars that could be avoided if the government first sought out and then took some legal advice before ramming legislation through parliament and into law, but also highlights their view that their majority status puts them above the laws of Canada and in fact entitles them to disregard it totally and change it according to their whim. Of course this attitude and method of creating policy has seen a record number of their new laws and changes to Canada’s old laws  stricken down on appeal to the Supreme court of Canada and also in the courts below it. Since there are a staggering amount of cases in which this has happened to this majority Conservative Party of Canada government, I will just offer these few examples of the latest in a string of key legal defeats for the government:

  1. The Federal Court of Canada ruled that cuts to health care for rejected refugee claimants were “cruel and unusual.” and gave the government four months to reverse the changes introduced in 2012.
  2. June: Supreme Court upholds privacy rights, ruling that internet service providers must not disclose names, addresses and phone numbers of their customers to law enforcement officials without a warrant. This expected to force the government to change bills on cyber bullying (C-13) and digital privacy (S-4) currently before Parliament.
  3. April: In a unanimous ruling, the high court affirmed that offenders can receive extra credit for time spent in custody before they are sentenced, a blow against the government’s Truth in Sentencing Act, which attempted to curb the practice by allowing it only in “exceptional” circumstances. The ruling, which was precedent-setting but did not strike down the law, gave judges the right to apply the extra credit for time served but did not reject the government’s limit of a 1.5 credit.
  4. March: March:  The Supreme Court strikes down section 10(1) of the Abolition of Early Parole Act, which tried to retroactively abolish accelerated parole for offenders who had already been sentenced as a violation of the offenders’ charter rights.
  5. September 2011: The Supreme Court ordered the federal minister of health to grant a Vancouver supervised injection clinic an exemption under Canada’s drug laws so it can remain open. The ruling gave the minister discretion to approve or deny future requests for exemptions, but required the government to balance public safety and charter rights when making the decision.

Is it so hard to believe that Canadians who used to believe that the idea of “democracy” and the phrase, “rule of law” really meant something are now becoming cynical of both and see neither really applying to the governance they are receiving from this government of Canada? Unfortunately in today’s Canada it would seem that the present government feels that the rules, principles and spirit of democracy can be sidestepped, ignored and rendered moot simply by their creation of new legislation. I believe that when a government continually rams through legislation that is constantly in violation of its citizens constitution and charter rights as this government is constantly trying to do that  it is guilty of leading its country away from it being able to lay claim to being  a democratically governed and a law-abiding country, because it is not enough to simply declare to be, a nation must also demonstrate their democracy and rule of law through its actions and treatment of every citizen equally and without prejudice. These are a few of the things that concern me and have me beginning to wonder if  Canada’s boast of being a supporter of democracy, human, civil and religious rights are still true:

  1. This government’s chipping and stripping away of more and more of our rights and freedoms that are the corner stones of Canadian democracy.
  2. This government’s mocking of  our democratic processes with its altering of the Canadian law with its creation of its “ministry of democratic reform.” I believe that this ministry was created by this party to change existing Canadian law that made the governments  continued violations of Canada’s election laws (which were  landing them in hot water). Instead of seeking all party consensus this government did as it has done on so many other occasions and simply rammed the legislation into law, by virtue of the majority they hold in all committees. (senate and parliamentary) The Canada Election Act of old was put in place to ensure fair elections for all political parties; this is not the case with the changes the Conservative Party of Canada has forced into law with their strop, stable majority government.
  3. This Conservative Party of Canada majority  government uses its majority  to force closure and shut down debate using time allocation at least 75 times in this parliament alone.
  4. I see this Conservative Party of Canada majority government refuse to consider and adopt even one amendment from any opposition party into any of their legislation.
  5. I see this Conservative Party of Canada use its majority to make irrelevant and fire the heads of parliamentary oversight agencies like, the head of Elections Canada, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, The Privacy Commissioner, the Auditor General of Canada, just to name a few for doing their jobs.
  6. I see this government refuse to be transparent on anything that it is trying to accomplish, even withholding the cost of the war to degrade and eventually defeat ISIL which we as Canadians are paying for and have a right to know, but something that our allies freely given to their citizens and I great detail.
  7. I see the government passing laws that ask judges who are supposed to uphold the constitutional rights of all Canadians to ignore them if they are to by the police  the RCMP or CSIS

Some would argue that in  order to protect ourselves from terrorist attacks and the loss our, values, religion as well rights and freedoms that we must we must be willing to pay the price for this protection, namely:

  • Some loss of our right to privacy.
  • Some loss of legal rights for example (a)the right of an accused to face one’s accuser, (b)the right to have a judge examine all of the evidence of a case before him or her and decide on its merit and its legality and (c)the right to know that the judge has not allowed for the violation of you civil, human, Canadian Charter or constitutional rights.

I would suggest however that if the price of victory over ISIS is the loss of our rights and freedoms guaranteed us under the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and all international act and treaties that Canada is supposed to be a willing participant in, then the price tag is too high. What good is there for Canadians if in saving Iraq from ISIL for instance and bringing democracy of a sort to that region for another we have to violate and ignore the fundamental principles of our own democracy? These principles that this majority Conservative government of Canada are doing an end run around  are the core values that comprise the very bedrock that supports and allows for our way of life for any governing party in Canada to try to do away with any of this core is to make us the same as any other people governed by a dictatorship, or authoritarian regime.

Canadians are allowing the Conservative Party of Canada to capitalize on the fear they are guilty of inciting in this country.  I believe that the Conservative Party of Canada has nothing against Muslims and could careless about the plight of Jews or Israelis whether in Canada, Israel or anywhere else in the world; both of these groups are just a means to a political end for the Conservative Party of Canada. I believe that the Conservative Party of Canada has and is still exploiting those fears to such a dangerous level. Canadians are suspicious  and leery of other Canadians and  so divided that the majority of Canadians are willingly being led down the slippery slope of  going along with things that we know are racist, non democratic and in fact have a lot in common with those of Adolf Hitler’s Germany and Joseph Stalin’s Russia.

Since the war on terror began after 9/11 I feel that it is us who call ourselves the civilised nations who have become more like the terrorist we claim we are fighting rather than they becoming more like us.  We are more like them than they have been made to be like us, for instance:

  • The RCMP,CSIS and the police will soon be able to  legally pick up a Canadian citizen and hold said person in a secret location for 7 days without charge, on the suspicion that they may be going to commit a terrorist act at sometime not known and somewhere not known against some one or some thing, again unknown. Does this not sound like what happens in those regimes that we are supposed to be trying to change and the others as strong or stronger than us militarily that we very vocally criticize?
  • The RCMP, CSIS and the police will now be able to spy on Canadian citizens, take down whatever they believe not posted in the best interest of the country without the knowledge of said citizen.  This to me smacks of anti freedom of speech and expression the, like we see in China and Russia for example where the state controls what is seen publicly and what is okay to express publicly.

ISIL, Boko Haram, al-Qaeda and all the other organizations referred to as barbaric terrorist organisations do commit atrocities against women like kidnapping them and forcing them into marriages and the like, but these atrocities that I agree are despicable and need to be stopped unfortunately are all that separates them from the America led coalition, including Canada, this is what I mean:

  1. Both sides do violent, deplorable things to their captives  in order to extract information, or for some other advantage from them and both side have killed their captives.  ISIL out in the open and bragging and the American led coalition in secret and denying everything like in Guantanamo Bay.
  2. Both side knowingly target innocent civilians and consider their deaths and suffering as collateral damage again one side openly acknowledging and even bragging about and the other denying they do it at all.
  3. Both side say that they are right and are being threatened by the other and are only defending themselves and their very existence.
  4. Both sides now believe that it is okay to enter and cause war in a sovereign country without legal grounds. Although the prime minister and Jason Kenney  seem to believe that it is unlikely that Canada will be taken to court over violating international laws and that it is okay to do because the USA has been ding it for months without legally being  challenge by any international body where crossing over into to Syria to wage war on ISIL is concerned, does not make what Canada is doing legal, it simply puts them in the same illegal place as the terrorists they seek to degrade and defeat.(defiantly refusing to abide international law that gets in their way of accomplishing the political agenda)

What a hollow victory we Canadians will have won if we must lose all of what makes us Canadians to win the mission to degrade and hopefully defeat ISIL.

Does Stephen Harper Really Care About Canadian Values And Women’s Rights In Canada And Around The World?


Two religions and cultures have more in common then Stephen Harper knows

30, 000 ultra-orthodox Israeli women in Israel cover their whole body and face. According to Wikipedia the sect is called “Haredi burka sect” or “Taliban mothers”. Many of these families dress their young girls of all ages with the same full dress garb, except for the face veil.

What is up Canada? Does Stephen Harper really care about Canadian values and women’s rights in Canada and around the world? I would say no.  Since he said to Canadians in 2006, “You won’t recognize Canada when I’m through with it” he has done everything to take back the rights of all Canadians including the rights regarding freedom of speech and expression, freedom to dissent and freedom to strike for fair treatment in the work place  and done nothing to stop the offensive way ultra-orthodox Jewish males treat their women in Canada; nor has he voiced his disapproval to the Israeli government for allowing the same practices to flourish in their country that he has states cannot be tolerated in Canada by some  Muslims.

Since Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party of Canada won the last federal election and gained a majority status in the House of Commons and then used their win to further give them the majority in the senate, I really understood what the old adage means that says, ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely’.

  • The Harper government could have done such great things for Canada and Canadians with control of the House of Commons and in every sitting committee  in both chambers, because everything they wished to accomplish could not be stopped by virtue of their voting majority status in all places.  Instead what I have seen is arrogance, a refusal to even consider amendments to bills put forward by the opposition parties, independent experts in their fields, scholars, or the oversight agencies like the auditor general’s office, elections Canada, parliamentary budget office, privacy commission and the Supreme Court of Canada, preferring to get rid of the heads of those agencies when they voice objections to their purposed actions where possible, try to intimidate and ruin the reputations and erode the power of those  officers they can not fire.
  • The Harper government feels that its majority status puts them above the law and refuses to follow any law that it feels should not apply to them be it election laws on spending practices, transparency, security, or anything else, preferring instead to do what it wants in creating laws that favor its position and enjoying the temporary power of forcing the bill into law knowing that it will not withstand a court challenge and be struck down in the future by the federal court, or the Supreme court of Canada.  This blatant disregard for the law has seen the party as a whole, it MPs and senators facing scandal after scandal.
  • The worst thing though is that in an effort to raise itself above the law this government has taken wedge politics and fear mongering to the worst level it has ever been in the history of Canada. Stephen Harper has taken a real concern for terrorism and a need to do something about it and turned it into his cash cow.  Failing in all ways as a government Stephen Harper has decided to play the race card and divide this country into and us against them scenario; the us being as he sees it, those who wish to blame Muslims for everything that is going wrong in this country security wise and them as he sees it, those Muslims who refuse to give up their culture and religious rights, especially those females who refuse to stop wearing their offensive religious headwear at official Canadian ceremonial functions.

I find it revealing that Stephen said in response to a comment  made by Justin Trudeau in  the house of commons that covering one’s face with a niqab is, “Rooted in a culture that is anti-women.”  Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party of Canada have decided that challenging the Federal Court of Canada’s ruling overturning his law that sought to limit where and when the head coverings that some devout Muslim women choose to wear as a sign of the respect for their God is so insulting to Canadian values and freedoms that it must be challenged.  I find it interesting that the is trying to say that it is giving the oppressed Muslim women her right and freedom to choose what she wants to wear and when by taking away their freedom to choose what they are permitted to wear while taking the oath of Canadian citizenship. Stephen Harper claims that devout Muslims are not respecting of women’s rights and Canadian values because:

  1. Women are forced to wear a head covering that has only slits for the eyes to be seen.
  2. Females are only educated in the very basics, if allowed to be educated at all.
  3. Women are subordinate to their husbands.
  4. Women are forced to endure prearranged forced marriages.

Yet when it comes to the treatment of the Hasidic female Jew by the males in her community Stephen Harper must think that the things I have listed below on a short list are aligned and in keeping with what are to him and his party’s position concerning women’s rights and freedoms The fact is that there are no laws being made to bring any of the offensive, archaic, non Canadian treatment of Hasidic women listed below to an end. Why does Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada support as a religious right that:

  1. The Hasidic female Jew will never be allowed to wear pants, because that is consider the clothing of men.
  2. The Hasidic female Jew will be forced to hide her hair under a scarf, hat or wig and in some of the worst cases being forced to shave it totally, once she is married.
  3. While Hasidic men, noted for their curled side locks, dress in black suits and formal black hats, and Hasidic women wear black head scarves, black skirts, black stockings and black shawls over white and grey tops, in Israel the women of Lev Tahor are dressed totally in black, including their faces.
  4. When there’s a question about a  married Hasidic women’s menstrual period, the wife is forced to put her blood stained underwear in a zip-lock bag for her husband to take to the synagogue where he pushes it into a special window for the rabbi to look at it. The Rabi after inspecting the blood stained underwear will pronounce it kosher or non kosher?
  5. The Hasidic female Jew will often be forced to work to support the family, take care of the children, do all household chores, without help, because their men are too busy studying religion to work.
  6. The Hasidic female will be considered as unclean for 2 weeks of every month of her life as long as she lives ( that equals approximately 50% of her life); considered not clean enough to pass your husband a glass even if their hands do not touch?
  7. Great emphasis is placed on male education in Hasidism, while women and girls are never expected to move past a basic literacy in daily/holiday prayers.

I wonder if Stephen Harper knows that the practice of covering ones face that he says, is rooted in a culture that is anti-women”  is practiced in Israel by about 30,000 Israeli ultra-orthodox women and as such he is saying that the Jewish religion and it’s practices are rooted in a culture that is anti-women as well. If as he and his MPs keep insisting that Muslims that carry out these types of practices should not be tolerated in Canada, or in any other civilised country in the world then he in my opinion has no choice but to condemn Israel for allowing these practices and do all in his power to force Israel to put an end to such practices within its borders and the practices of the orthodox Jews and in Canada the way that Jewish orthodox and ultra orthodox females are treated should me made against the law.  Not an easy thing to say, or followup do to a country and a people you have publicly sworn to support, ‘Unconditionally’, but something that needs to be done if Prime Minister Harper’s words and concern for what he calls practices rooted in a culture that is anti-women is sincere and not more of his fear mongering, divisive rhetoric.

Personally I think that Stephen Harper does not give a damn about either of the groups and sees them both as a means to a political end that he means to exploit like he does everything else.  Stephen Harper will continue to pit Canadians one against another exploiting their deep-rooted fears, prejudices and even hatreds until it is no longer politically profitable. In my opinion Stephen Harper does not give a damn what anyone wears on his or her head, or where and when they wear it. I believe what he cares about and lusts after is power and the right to rule without interference and the Muslim people of Canada and around the world,  just happen to be  pawns to be sacrificed in his game of chess, as were the First Nations, gays and lesbians, separatists of Quebec, all who he purported to support in the past to win elections with their voting blocks and threw under the bus when their cause became to problematic to support openly, or  the photo opts were not worth the effort and quite simply put, of no further use to him politically.

Are Canadian Politicians Believing Their Own Rhetoric And Spin About Muslims Being Treated With Respect, Dignity And Equality In Canada?


Dressed Inappropriate For Court Room, Racist Judge, Or Judge Incompetence

Dressed Inappropriate For Court Room, Racist Judge, Or Judge Incompetence

What is up Canada? Why are all levels of the Canadian government claiming to have no idea why highly intelligent young Muslim males and females are fleeing this country, willing to give up their families, their education and their citizenship to take up arms and fight for groups like ISIS in ever increasing numbers against Canada and her allies? I personally believe that killing for any reason is wrong and to kill innocent people to prove a point is non defensible, but  in my opinion for Canadian politicians to continually ask the question why young Muslims are easy targets for  recruiters of Jihadi extremists terrorists groups like ISIS proves that they  are beginning to believe their own rhetoric and spin and believe that Canada is actually treating its Muslim community with respect, dignity and equality.  I would suggest that  Stephen Harper and all Canadian politicians take an honest, hard look at the openly hostile anti-Muslim environment they have created all over Canada.

Consider these things:

  •  Every single Muslims who refuses to prove that they have accepted European culture, values, traditions and religion have been labeled a Jihadi terrorists in waiting.
  • Every day women and men who dare to wear their traditional or religious clothing are threatened, harassed and literally told to go back where they come from by other Canadians, because all levels of Canadian government say that if Muslims want to live here they should try to be more inconspicuous and try to blend in.
  • If any female Muslim shows up in court wearing the required religious clothing of her faith, she risks the possibility of a Canadian judge refusing to hear her case even though her face is open for the court to see.

 This is the anti-Muslim environment that Canada’s political leaders of all stripes and at all levels need to understand that they have created with their so called reasonable accommodation limitations speeches that they make, anti-terrorist rhetoric that they spout and the anti-terrorist laws that they enact. If they the politicians would just look at the anti-Muslim environment that they are guilty of creating and sustaining they would  understand the reasons Canadian Muslim youth feel that the only entity offering them real citizenship, fellowship, the freedom to practice their religion without fear of reprisal of any kind and eventually a country to call their own if they are willing to fight for it, are unfortunately those recruiting for ISIS and groups like them.   I would ask the MPs of Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party of Canada the likes of Diane Ablonczy to consider that Canadians and that includes our Muslim population are not stupid and know exactly who is being targeted with the anti-terrorist act 2015 and every other law that this government has passed by the use of its majority status in the House of Commons and in both the senate and parliamentary committees.

Muslim’s in Canada in general are getting the impression by the way they are being treated by every level of government in Canada and the justice system that they are not welcome in Canada and that they are not really worthy to be Canadians by any stretch of the imagination.  I believe the case of  the Canadian Muslim woman, Rania El-Alloul, residing in the province of Quebec speaks volumes as to why  young Canadian Muslims are so easily  radicalised by groups like ISIS .  Rania El-Alloul in my opinion was only saying out loud what the majority of Canadian Muslims feel, but do not dare to say publically for fear of  governmental and societal persecution when she  said,  “I felt that I’m not Canadian anymore.”  after Judge Eliana Marengo told her that, The courtroom is a secular place and that she was not suitably dressed saying that, “Hats and sunglasses for example, are not allowed.  And I don’t see why scarves on the head would be either.”  

I do not believe for one second that had it been a Jewish male appearing before Judge Eliana Marengo wearing a Kiper that she would have objected, or referred to it as an ordinary hat, or a pair of sunglasses; let alone, refused to hear the case. Does a priest, wearing a collar, or another citizen with a cross in open sight have to remove their religious wear to be heard in any court in Canada?  This is not just one isolated case of  discrimination in Canada regarding the wearing of religious head covering; Canada’s past problems with religious head coverings range from wearing turbans on the soccer field to Muslim women being allowed to vote wearing a face covering veil, for example as noted in an article I read on the net posted by CBC titled 5 head-covering controversies in Canada:

  1. Sikh wearing their turbans if they wanted to join the RCMP (Baltej Singh Dhillon fought for his religious rights and was permitted to wear his turban while training, and in 1990, the federal government ended the ban preventing Sikhs in the RCMP from wearing turbans.)
  2. In 2011, then immigration minister Jason Kenney announced new rules banning face coverings for people taking the Canadian citizenship oath. Until then, a citizenship clerk or other official could pull aside a woman wearing a niqab at the ceremony and have the woman lift it for identification. In February 2015, a Federal Court judge ruled that women can wear a niqab while taking the oath.  Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said the federal government will appeal the ruling, a decision critics have questioned.
  3. ​In 2013, the Quebec Soccer Federation announced a ban on players wearing turbans or related religious headwear on the pitch. The ban, which the federation said was a result of safety concerns, came despite a directive from the Canadian Soccer Association that said turbans were OK. Only after hearing from FIFA, the international soccer body, the federation reversed the ban and said it was “deeply sorry” if anyone was offended.
  4. In April 2013, an Ontario judge ruled that a woman had to remove her niqab to testify in a sexual assault case. The decision came after the judge applied a new test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada dealing with witnesses wearing a veil.  In the split decision, the majority ruled that judges have to do a four-part test to determine if a Muslim woman can be allowed to wear a niqab when testifying:- Does she have a sincere belief in her religion?- Does wearing a veil create a serious risk to trial fairness?- Is there any other way to accommodate her?- If no, does what the court called the “salutary” effects of ordering her to remove her niqab outweigh the “deleterious” effects of doing that? The woman had been fighting for six years for the right to wear her niqab during the trial of her uncle and cousin, who were accused of sexually assaulting her when she was a child in the 1980s.
  5. To In 2007, Quebec’s chief returning officer said Muslim women would be able to wear a niqab when receiving a ballot for the provincial election, a position that set off fierce debate. Party leaders urged him to reverse the decision, which he eventually did. A similar controversy arose in Quebec six months later during federal byelections.  On the Elections Canada website, it currently says if an elector wearing a face covering arrives to vote, the deputy returning officer will ask the elector to show their face. >”If the elector agrees to remove their face covering, the election official will follow regular voting procedures,” the website says. > “If the elector does not wish to remove their face covering, the deputy returning officer will advise the elector that they must provide two pieces of authorized identification, one proving their identity and the other proving their identity and address, and then take an oath attesting to their eligibility to vote.”> If that is done, regular voting procedures will follow.

Cases of discrimination against Muslims go largely unheard in Canada, because Canadian Muslim’s fear if they speak out they will labelled terrorists or sympathetic to terrorists and an enemy of Canada and all Canadians. These Muslim children are leaving Canada, because they feel like Canada looks upon all Muslims with suspicion and infers that all Muslims should be treated in all ways and at all times as the enemy within and so these Muslim children no longer feel that they are considered as real Canadians, or accepted, or wanted in Canada; this is what is allowing for the radicalization of Canadian Muslim youth, by groups like ISIS; this is what comes from  Canada’s  highest ranking politicians using fear mongering to get voters to submit to the idea of giving more power to the government, to give up their constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms, to things as important as:

  • Speech and expression.
  • Movement and travel.
  • Practice one’s religion without being discriminated against.
  • Be viewed as equal under the law and treated equally under the law at all times and by all persons responsible for creating the laws and for those in charge of enforcing the law.

Since Stephen Harper was given a majority government Canada has become just another nation with a government that is afraid of  any person residing within its borders that is different then that of  the majority its citizenry. In Stephen Harper’s new Canada I believe that  discriminatory practices and laws that once were acknowledged as shameful that needed to be removed are now being encouraged, justified and made legal by Stephen Harper’s majority government. In Canada this means that anybody that is not White in skin color, who’s heritage cannot be traced back Canada’s European founding fathers and who do not share the same hysterical culture, religious beliefs, languages and values of the majority of Canada’s citizenry find themselves in a new Canada that grows more dangerously intolerant, more judicially unfair and increasingly more inescapable for them every day and with the passing of every new made for real Canadians law that the Stephen Harper led majority Conservative Party of Canada government passes into law.  The Canadian government by restricting travel to Muslims who they feel could be going abroad to commit a terrorist act, may be guilty of blocking the exit/escape of Muslims who have done nothing wrong and who simply feel that they can no longer stand to live under the tyranny, persecution and oppressive laws of Canada as they see them and wish to do as this government has suggested so often and that is that they should immigrate to a country better suited to them and their way of life.

This government has decided to target the Muslim minority population in this country and make them all look like they are the enemy within waiting to strike out at the God fearing decent white, Christian majority, because it is easy to do, because of  the tactics used by groups like ISIS to accomplish their goals, but in reality, in so doing they have become like ISIS and all of those other groups and have instead begun to change what set Canada apart from them.  I love the Canada that knew that it had to change and do better with the way it treated people of this country that were different, I am not so crazy about the Canada that the likes of   Judge Eliana Marengo, Diane Ablonczy, Steven Blaney, Jason Kenney and Stephen Harper are creating and hope that with a federal election being called in 2015 and hopefully a change in government at a federal level that we can return to a Canada where everyone is welcome and where our diversity and differences are considered something to be proud of and not feared. A Canada where children do not fear for their cultural and religious existence so much that they become easy prey for radicalisation by terrorist groups.

Eve Adams Too Blonde And Too Pretty To Be Taken Seriously In Politics, Infer Rosemary Barton, Althia Raj And Kady O’Malley


Eve Adams Too Blonde And Too Pretty To Be Taken Seriously In Politics Say Rosemary Barton, Althia Raj And Kady O'Malley

Eve Adams Too Blonde And Too Pretty To Be Taken Seriously In Politics, Infer Rosemary Barton, Althia Raj And Kady O’Malley

c557919c9244d4cb9576e67236544003Is it any wonder that women do not run for political office in numbers that would be expected in Canada, or get the cabinet positions that they deserve based on their experience and merit when influential women like Althia Raj, (the Huffington Post Canada’s, Ottawa bureau chief) cover stories like Eve Adams crossing the floor the way she and other female journalists did on CBC’s, “Power and Politics” ? Althia Raj’s comments have been the most sexist and chauvinistic that I have heard to date and she has repeated them on every occasion she gets over the last 4 days with other panellist either:

  1. Rolling their eyes and grimacing
  2. Emboldening the Eve Adams hating males on the program to follow suit.

You would have thought that Eve Adams was the 1st elected politician to cross the floor and that it was somehow made worst by the fact that she was a blonde, easy to look at female by the way  Rosemary Barton, Althia Raj and Kady O’Malley  cynically attacked Eve Adams’s credentials. In my opinion their combined insistence that the only reason she got her job in the 1st place was because of who she was sleeping with was such  a throw back and discredit to the advances of the female in politics, in the workplace and in women’s rights in general, that I thought it rich that they kept referring to her lack of  commitment to women’s rights issues, eluding to her voting record, while in the Harper government. I watched as guest moderator of  CBC’s Power and Politics’ Rosemary Barton not only permitted, but joined Althia Raj and Kady O’Malley  when they decided to whip out their hidden penises, disregard all of Eve Adams’s hard work for over 25 years in politics and make some very sexist and chauvinistic references, inferring that:

  1. Eve Adams was only looked at as an MP by the Progressive Conservative Party, because of the relationship with her partner  Dimitri Soudas.
  2. Eve Adams was only looked at as having any value to the Liberal Party of Canada because of her relationship with her partner Dimitri Soudas.
  3. If Eve Adams was not blonde and cute that no one would even be covering the story of Eve Adams’s defection.

The  comments of  Rosemary Barton, Althia Raj and Kady O’Malley did little to shed any meaningful insight to the pros and cons of Eve Adams  crossing the floor, but instead reminded me of my time in  high school where there were always a group of not so popular girls plotting to take the prettiest girls in the school down a peg by spreading unflattering roomers about them, or labeling all of the cheer leaders as sluts having sex with all of the jocks, and all blonde girls as dumb and ditzy, whose only  chance at finding happiness, respectability  and success in their life after high school  would be to go to college and university and find and marry a successful man.

I personally do not like the past politics of Eve Adams and in her case with her long standing vocal support of Stephen Harper, his method of governing and for his policies. My cynical side makes me think of the old adage about the leopard not being able to change it’s spots, but even  at my most mean spirited moment; my most sexist moment; my most swaggering chauvinistic moment would I suggest that Eve Adams’s advancement in politics and with the Conservative Party of Canada had anything to do with her looks, or who she was sleeping with, because there is absolutely no evidence of that.

I do not think that Eve Adams will be able to convince many people that it is possible for her to stop believing in what she professed was good for all Canadians and Canada over the last 25 years overnight and even if she could, how could Canadians believe that she would not change again over night.  What I am getting at is that Eve Adams does have a credibility issue, but it is not her looks, her credentials, or who she chooses to sleep with; it is can the voters in  the GTA riding she hopes to represent in the 2015 federal election as a Liberal MP, believe what Eve Adams says she believes in  today will be the same for the foreseeable future; in other words can they trust Eve Adams to know what it is she believes in.”  That being said I do not see how sitting as a back bencher in the Harper government could be said to be doing your job for your constituents either.

No one on any current event program that I have watched has tried to even answer the question, or seems to care why a 25 year staunch conservative party member suddenly chose to leave the party she has worked for and supported since the age of 14. I am not surprised when I hear men refer to a women’s looks, sexuality as having gotten her to where she is, but in this day and age to hear that type of talk from respected, highly educated women, who would call themselves progressive and feminist, such as Rosemary Barton, Althia Raj and Kady O’Malley was truly a shock and a step back for journalistic integrity and responsible journalism. I would suggest that Rosemary Barton, Althia Raj and Kady O’Malley all retake  journalism 101, and seriously revisit why they became reporters and if they should be trusted by Canadians to relate what is happening politically in this country.

I wonder what these ladies have had to do to advance their personal careers that makes them so cynical and ready to believe that this is the only way that a woman can realise success in todays world? The fact that Eve Adams was still parliamentary secretary to the  minister of health  and making major spending announcements on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada right up to the time of her defections announcement meant little to the 3 amigos, who ignored that question contented with the opportunity to bash Eve Adams, and  fixate on the future job prospects of Dimitri Soudas within the Liberal Party of Canada.

I think that it is also time for CBC to come to grips with the fact that encouraging their reporters to put their personality into their reporting of the news is leading to news coverage that is slanted and bias.  Every current events news program has color analysts on a panel, giving what is supposed to be their opinion based on the facts as they see them, but usually end up with everyone talking over the other trying to score political points for their party of choice. this inability to control the other panellists and keep the debate intelligent is something Rosemary Barton finds funny judging from her comments.  So now the host or moderator and the panellists for CBC’s current event shows are all giving their personal slanted often emotionally charged views on air, that at the end of the day forces  us the viewers  to listen to an hour of what amounts to political campaigning with all of its attack ad mentality, political spin and rhetoric, instead of factual, non bias news reporting. I wonder if there is any is any monetary, professional, or any other kind incentive paid to these color annalists by the political parties they fight so hard to  put in a good light? I wonder what is the going price is to get a spokesperson/attack dog reporter the likes of a Rosemary Barton, Althia Raj, or Kady O’Malley to cross the floor of journalistic integrity to the side of bias reporting?