Archive

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ 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.

“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!

Does Justin Trudeau’s Honesty, Transparency And Willingness To Listen To Others Make up For His Lack Of Experience?


c557919c9244d4cb9576e67236544003What is up Canada, does Justin Trudeau’s honesty, transparency and willingness to listen to others make up for his lack of experience, appears to be the question leading up to which leader we will vote in 2015? We as Canadians have  a lot of evidence to show us what politicians with a lot of political experience are capable of doing for Canada and to Canadians.  All Canadians have to do is look at the leader of the governing party Stephen Harper and the leader of the official opposition party Thomas Mulcair to see the proof that experience in a leader for a country is not all that needs to be looked for when choosing a country’s leader.  In the case of both Harper and Mulcair it becomes painfully obvious that all they bring to the table is experience in politics that is bad the country and the people they are supposed to be serving.  I believe that if as in the case of Harper and Mulcair that their political experience  gets in the way of them remembering that although they have been elected to govern the country, that they are still the servants of their people then they and not dictators, or sovereigns then I think that having political experience means nothing good for the country.  Harper’s and Mulcair’s political experience seems to cause them to:

  1. Close their minds and hearts to the feelings of others.
  2.  Feel that they have all of the answers and know what is best for everyone without having to ask them.
  3. Feel they have no need to consult with experts, take advice, or ask the opinion of others and honestly seek consensus.

It is these things that tell me that for all of their political experience Stephen Harper  and Thomas Mulcair have become a bad thing for democracy, this country and its people.

Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair   and a majority of Canadians consider Justin Trudeau the politician to beat in the 2015 federal election, despite what Harper and Mulcair are saying about his lack of political experience.  Both leaders are trying to persuade the non committed voter to vote for them and not Justin Trudeau, because they see Trudeau as being too young, too rich and too politically inexperienced to deal with all of the problems that they the more experienced politicians have gotten this country into and vow to continue to get us into if re-elected, or elected in 2015.

 Understand that Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair are not that far apart when it comes to gas fracking, pipelines, decriminalization of marijuana, or how to deal with the Middle East conflict.   I get a sense that Canadians are not all that thrilled with what politicians have been saying and doing in terms of governing this country and are looking for a leader who is not already corrupted by years of political experience and who stills believes it is their duty to Canadians to:

  •  End tragedies plaguing this country like child poverty, communities with no drinkable water, homelessness etc..
  • Be open, transparent and honest when addressing the concerns of all Canadians.
  • Give all Canadians cause to hope  and work with us to help us turn our dreams into realities.

Stephen Harper and his government are  experienced at embarrassing Canadians with  political scandals.

  1. Shoe Store Project – 2007 – Prime Minister’s Office under Stephen Harper plans $2 million, government-controlled media centre to replace current National Press Theatre (which is run by press gallery staff, instead of those from the PMO).
  2. Julie Couillard scandal – 2007 – Conservative Foreign Minister Maxime Bernier resigned after leaving sensitive NATO documents in the home of Julie Couillard, an ex-girlfriend with links to the Hells Angels biker gang
  3. In and Out scandal – 2007 – alleged circumvention of election finance rules by the Conservatives in the 2006 election campaign.
  4. First Prorogation – 2008 – prorogued government to avoid a non-confidence vote.
  5. Afghan Detainees Inquiry or Prorogation 2 – 2010 – prorogued government a second time claiming it was for the Olympics to avoid inquiry into the maltreatment of Afghan detainees. Harper was found to be in Contempt of Parliament for refusing to share information. The first time in Canadian history.
  6. Robocall scandal – 2012 – Allegations of widespread voter fraud occurring during the 2011 Canadian federal election. Robotic and live calls to voters are claimed to have been made in 38 ridings. Currently under investigation by the RCMP and Elections Canada.
  7. The ETS Scandal – An ongoing Canadian political scandal involving alleged wrongdoing by Canadian government officials in the award of a $400-million information technology services contract and allegations of political interference in the ensuing cover-up.
  8. F-35 Fighter Jet Scandal – 2012 – Involved misleading costs of F-35 Fighter Jets to replace former CF18s.
  9. CFIA Scandal – 2012 – is an ongoing scandal involving food inspection services being insufficient to the Canadian public this comes after the budget cuts to Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the temporary closure of XL Meats due to a widespread E-coli outbreak in Alberta.
  10. Canadian Senate expenses scandal – 2012 – An ongoing investigation concerning the expense claims of certain Canadian senators which began in late 2012. Senators Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, and Patrick Brazeau claimed travel and housing expenses from the Senate for which they were not eligible.
  11. Nutrition North Program scandal, that has elders eating out of the garbage, because the subsidy program is not working and the prices of food is too high for them to afford.

I will stop here because I think that my point is made that sometimes the experience of our politicians is not always a good thing and often just leaves them, more arrogant, more cynical and more adept at misleading us the voter and more likely to willing do so and feel justified in doing so when caught.

 Stephen Harper is experienced at breaking records set by other governments that were not good for democracy, the country, or its people:

  1. The amount of times that they have used prorogation to allow his government not to answer difficult questions.
  2. Imposed time allocation to shut down debates in the house of commons.
  3. The amount of times that they have used omnibus budget bills to make the total content of the bill impossible to be looked at in-depth and to avoid having the things that have nothing to do with the budget to be scrutinised in their proper  committees and by the committee members of the opposition parties whose expertise is in those matters and made for a meaningful debate.

In my opinion  since The New Democratic Party of Canada made  Thomas Mulcair their leader the federal NDP has become more Autocratic than Democratic.

Since becoming the leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, Thomas Mulcair has proven that his experience leads him to believe that the only way to win votes and elections is to be as arrogant, dishonest and as hypocritical as Stephen Harper. Thomas Mulcair with all of his so called political experience has lost just about all of the credibility that Jack Layton gained for the federal party, by abandoning the NDP’s principles and policies in his pursuit of power.

  1. Thomas Mulcair is supportive of Energy East, a raw bitumen export pipeline that will expand tar sands production 40% above the current rate of 2 million barrels per day – this flies in the face of NDP climate policy.
  2. Thomas Mulcair supports Kinder Morgan he states that with a better environmental assessment process Kinder Morgan would be OK. Kennedy Stewart’s petition only opposes the pipeline going through Burnaby.
  3. Every New Democratic Party MP voted in what had to be a whipped vote to support the Canada Korea free trade agreement. This went against NDP trade policy which opposes supporting any trade agreement with Investor State provisions.
  4. Thomas Mulcair is opposed to decriminalizing marijuana and has stated on national TV that he will not follow through with NDP policy to decriminalize.
  5. Thomas Mulcair supports gas fracking.

I guess Thomas Mulcair’s experience has told him that Canadians respond to American style of politics and in an effort to try to win election in 2015, he and his party faithful have personal attacks on the other party leaders as well as opposition MPs  rather than promoting what are his and their personal attributes that put him and them above the other leaders and MPs and worthy of getting our votes at election time. The NDP has wasted a lot of time and energy in the House of Commons in trying criticizing their opponents on topics devoid of fact, that appear to have nothing to do with the matter being debated. He like Harper has decided that the way to change how your party addresses certain sensitive political issues is to either force them out.

Hassainia, the MP for Verchères-Les Patriotes in Quebec said of Thomas Mulcair and the NDP one week after her resignation, “I didn’t resign only because of the party’s position on the Israeli attacks against Gaza, but  because Thomas Mulcair and the NDP are being dishonest  when they say that the Israelis are the oppressed in the present conflict.” I resigned also, because, the NDP no longer shared my values and by this I mean, “The NDP has one of the youngest caucuses in Canada, and it has the most women. We promote the value of work–family balance, but as soon as someone inside the party has to deal with both, as I had to, it’s less clear, especially when there’s no maternity leave.  We have to apply the policies that we defend internally as well.” Note: Hassainia is the fourth MP to quit the NDP caucus since the “orange wave” of 2011.  Lise Saint-Denis joined the Liberal Party, Claude Patry chose the Bloc Québécois and Bruce Hyer left to sit as an independent before joining the Green Party.

Thomas Mulcair experience seems to have also led him to believe as leader of the Official Opposition he and his party are above the law, jus like Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada.  Under his leadership Thomas Mulcair has allowed for political scandal to infest his party.

  1. Refusing to stop for the gate-keeper on Parliament Hill who was just doing his job.
  2. Refusing to stop for the  RCMP pursuing in their car signal lights flashing, trying to get him to pull over.
  3. Refusing to apologise to anyone for his actions and refusing to take responsibility for breaking the law.
  4. Guilty of causing his own members to resign from the party, dissatisfied with his dictatorial style of  leadership and where that style of leadership is taking the NDP as a political party.
  5. Guilty of approving the Satellite Offices Scheme which turned into the Satellite Office  Scandal.
  6. Guilty of approving the NDP mass mailings scandal, involving taxpayer dollars.
  7. Guilty of personally doing nothing to help 2 female MPs in his party, who alleged they were sexually harassed by 2 Liberal male MPS,  with the exception of whining about the actions taken by Justin Trudeau.
  8. Failing to stop the  2 female MPs in his own party scandal in which 2 female NDP MPS from publicly naming the 2 accused male Liberal MPs and giving graphic interviews of the events, while insisting  their right to remain anonymous, be kept.

In fairness Justin Trudeau does not have the experience of the other 2 politicians have and he is far from perfect, but I think that his lack of experience and imperfections are a breath of fresh air and will work in his favor, because

  1. The political process has not yet hardened his heart and mind against Canadians and he still feels that he is one of us; neither above or below us which translates to him relating and talking to Canadians, not at them.
  2. Justin Trudeau is hard to control by political machines, because he still feels  obligated to say what is on his mind and many people may not appreciate what it is he is saying, or perhaps may get offended by what comes out of his mouth sometimes, but he is not afraid to simply tell it like he sees it without a scripted pre-written response and everyone knows that what he says he means.
  3. Justin Trudeau proved with his actions during the senate scandal and the sexual harassment  that he does not feel that either his party , or himself are above the law and that once he is aware that laws are, or could have been broken that he is  not afraid to take action, own the problem and no matter the cost politically to him and his party try his best to do the right thing under the laws of this country, parliament and in the best interest of all Canadians.
  4. Justin Trudeau also refuse to use attack ads and follow the American style of politics, rather putting his reputation as an honest, hard-working person out there for all to judge instead.
  5. Justin Trudeau also feels that one should never shut down diplomacy and turn to violence to settle problems and that the more people you kill only creates more enemies and never makes for lasting friendships, or trusted partners.
  6. He is the only federal leader right now that is willing to state openly that he believes that to solve a problem like terrorism be it home-grown or foreign, requires that the root causes of what has upset these terrorists, must be understood and fixed, before they will see the value in peace.

I guess if you are the type of Canadian that likes to be lied to, treated like a child who does not know what is good for you and must be spied on, abused, told what to do and led around by the nose, then I guess that Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair with all of their experience doing that and a whole lot of other dictator like things is the way to go.  I for one like the fresh, honest, transparent face that Justin Trudeau brings to politics with his in experienced self and I am willing to have my feelings hurt just a little if that is the price for him saying truthfully how he feels in an open a spontaneous manner. Justin Trudeau’s mistakes are honest and human, unlike the other 2 leaders whose mistakes are not mistakes at all, but instead calculated, deliberate actions used to garner votes based such tactics being utilised in the past successfully to win votes. Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair’s political experience when confronted with wrong doing allow them to either lie, evade stand on their experience  in politics. Even when found guilty of the crime for which they were accused both of these leaders show little or no remorse, but instead cite case after case where their wrong doing has been used in the past by other experienced politicians successfully and without fear of punishment.

I think that Canadians are tired of what the old style of experienced politician is doing or not doing on our behalf and is ready to let the country be governed by a political party who has a leader who does not think that they have all of the answers and still sees others views, opinions and ideas as important and necessary to have before acting on their behalf; a person who really believes in not only the rules of democracy, but in the spirit of democracy as well.

Is The Two State Solution Based On The Palestinians Becoming The Middle East’s Version Of The North American Indian’s Reality?


c557919c9244d4cb9576e67236544003What is up Canada? Why would Canadian politicians see the Palestinian move to gain admission to the International Criminal Court as a bad thing.  When the Palestinians try to defend themselves and end the illegal occupation of their lands by Israel through violence, they are labelled terrorists and told by Canada, the USA  and the other members of the Western Alliance to seek peaceful solutions to their land being stolen and resettled illegally by Israel. Now when they try to avail themselves of the only legal, peaceful solution available to them through the ICC, they are told that if they pursue this line of action although it is their right to do so and is legal and understandable that they could face financial sanctions from the USA while Canada’s Foreign Minister John Baird publicly denounces their attempt to seek justice.

I get confused at what Canada does want the Palestinians to do in its efforts to seek justice for what it feels are war crimes that Israeli government has committed against the Palestinian people  via peaceful and international accepted  legal means, when I see statements being made like this by Canadian politicians in the National Post:

  • The Canadian government is condemning a move by the Palestinian Authority to join the International Criminal Court in a bid to eventually launch war-crimes prosecutions against Israel.
  • Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird says the action taken by Palestinians this week is a “concerning and dangerous development.” “Such a provocative decision only furthers the divide between Palestinians and Israelis, and will carry unfortunate consequences,” he said. “Canada has expressed these concerns directly to the Palestinian Authority for nearly four years now.”
  • NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar said Friday that the Palestinian bid for ICC membership is “understandable” and “entirely legal,” but nonetheless represents a “ramping up” of tensions that isn’t helpful to the goal of getting a negotiated settlement. “This isn’t going to solve the quagmire that we see between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It doesn’t lead to what we want to see, which is the creation of a state of Palestine with recognition from the Israelis.”
  • Liberal foreign affairs critic Marc Garneau said Friday the Palestinians’ “unilateral” action gets in the way of a “two-state solution.” “I think it sends a signal which is counter-productive. They are free to apply but I think it is a mistake on their part and will only make the situation worse by entrenching positions,” Garneau said.

Is Canada’s and the USA’s position that the two state solution is in reality based on:

  • The Palestinians becoming the Middle East’s version of the North American Indian’s reality?
  • A two state solution that makes the Palestinians the wards of  Israel, to be forever recognised as an independent nation subordinate to Israeli laws, to be given the  right to self governance with an Israeli veto taking priority?
  • Palestinians accepting to teach in their schools and mosques what is dictated to them by the Israelis?
  • Palestinians being willing to give up their lands to Israel, forget and seek no justice in the courts for the bombing of  their children as they played on the beach, slept in their beds and prayed in their mosques?

If not why would the United States congress be threatening to cut $400 million in funding to the Palestinians, for seeking a legal solution to what it feels are war crimes that have been committed against it by Israel?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacted angrily, saying the ICC should not accept the Palestinian Authority because it is not a state. He said the Palestinian government includes Hamas, which commits war crimes, but I say  that when he allowed for the shelling and bombing of known civilian targets, he was knowingly committing war crimes and should be tried for them. If he decides to level charges against the Palestinians, I believe that it is his right to do so.  What I do not get is the deliberate interference by Canada and the USA to thwart what has already been acknowledged as, “understandable” and “entirely legal.”

I would ask again, “What is up Canada, is it Canada’s and the USA’s position that the two state solution is in reality based on the Palestinian people becoming the Middle East’s version of the North American Indian’s reality? Is it the same paternalistic approach, the same sort of treaties that will never be honored, the same type of land claims that will never be settled, the same 3rd world living conditions on the one big reserve, or reservation that will be all that is left to Palestine after the solution is forced upon them. It seems that Canadian politicians will not be content until the Palestinians cave in under the weight of embargoes, sanctions, blockades and other forms of coercion, that is being offered as an offer the Palestinians are not entitled to refuse?

What will make Canada happy?

  • Will it be the successful use of an Israeli version of our residential schools imposed on the Palestinians so that their children can be properly assimilated into the west’s way of thinking and value system?
  • Will it be when the Palestinians are wiped off the face of the earth either by violence, or by the loss of their language, religion and culture,  by the Israelis and no longer pose a threat either real or imaginary to the west?

What is clear to me is that the west will continue to back Israel no matter what crimes against humanity they commit and justify it all with rhetoric.  Canada since Stephen Harper took office as the prime minister of Canada is complicit in the deaths of every innocent Palestinian man, woman and child that has died at the hands of Israel.  We are now guilty of interfering with a legal court investigation, by illegally tampering with a United Nations recognised nation seeking membership in the ICC. As well as trying to stop said nation from seeking  justice  in the ICC with threats and coercion and bribery.  Is this truly how Canada sees justice being meted out fairly and without prejudice? Has justice truly come to mean just for us?

“The Interview” Should Never Have Been Made But there Is Another Lesson To Be Learned By The Militarily Strong


c557919c9244d4cb9576e67236544003What is up Canada? Why are the governments of Canada and the United States of America surprised at the reaction of Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s Supreme leader to a movie that Sony Pictures made called, “The Interview?” The stars of the movie are 2 American reporters on a USA sanctioned mission to assassinate him during an interview he granted them. I would ask what if this movie had been made in North Korea, Syria, Russia, or by ISIS and the person to be assassinated was  President Obama of the USA, or Canadian Prime Minister Harper? Do you think that they, the secret services of both countries and the citizens of both countries would still be referring to, “The Interview,” this as a satirical comedy and saying that although we may find the subject matter personally distasteful that it falls within the grounds of freedom of speech and expression? I think not, but then again I think that the west is being taught a different type of lesson and that is that through technology the battlefield has been changed and the weapons that used to make a nation most powerful now make it the most vulnerable.

In Canada our government is passing all sorts of laws that restrict what we say in any form about Jewish people calling it anti-Semitic, or anything that is supportive of any person, or persons that it has deemed to be a terrorist, a terrorist group, or a nation supporting, or promoting terrorist activity I find it rich that it would spout rhetoric about freedom of expression and allowing for the freedom for everyone to have the right to say what it is we are feeling, without fear of threat from our government, or any other government.

Stephen Harper and his government have gone as far as to repeal the citizenship of any dual citizen, revoke the passport of any permanent resident and arrest and charge any Canadian born in Canada if it can be proven that they are guilty of espousing what it calls terrorist propaganda, or contributing to a terrorist cause whether they knew they were doing it or not. In other words Stephen Harper is willing to strand people with Canadian passports in foreign countries without due process for availing themselves of their right to freedom of speech.

Am I wrong in saying that during the  Iraq war the USA interfered in the freedom of the press and in doing so interfered with freedom of speech by embedding reporters and forcing them to sign a contract and agree to allow their reports to be reviewed by military officials prior to release, to be escorted at all times by military personnel, and to allow the government to dismiss them at any time for any reason?

Would it be such a far stretch to say that Kim Jun-un could think of the USA as a terrorist regime out to remove him from power by any means necessary? Are the USA and North Korea both not guilty of taunting each other, each knowing that the other will do nothing overtly in terms of taking action that would cause the other to go to war.

 I find it discomforting that the only thing that Harper and Obama can agree on lately is their nations and allies justification for the taking of innocent life along with the guilty in bombing raids and shelling. (Israel’s intentional shelling and bombing of civilian targets that killed over a 100 children.) Obama and Harper have finally found something else on which they agree and once again they do not seem to care that it puts at risk innocent lives even though those innocent lives are those of their own citizens. Both leaders publicly stated that Sony should not have pulled the movie and given into threats and that it was a mistake to give into terrorist threats and demands. Obama was of the opinion that Sony should have talked to him 1st and in Harper’s opinion they should have shown it and Canada would have done something to show their support. I agree with Sony that in the end they could not have opened that movie in theaters for several reasons after they received the threat:

  • All those saying that Sony caved in and shouldn’t have I believe would be the 1st in the land where suing is a national past time to hold Sony responsible for every injury, or death resulting from the movie being shown after they were prior warned of the possibility of harm to movie goers.
  • What kind of movie theater owner would endanger the lives of its patrons by showing a movie that has received terrorist threats saying that they will harm movie goers if the movie is shown. When places where important work is being conducted are  shut down when a terrorist threat is received until the threat can be proven to be false, like, office buildings, schools, Capitol Hill, Parliament Hill, airports, metros, train stations  and a whole lot of other places, why in this instance with the threat to lives of people going to see a movie would the  president of the USA and the prime minister of Canada both state publicly they felt Sony made a mistake not releasing the film? Would they really have sent their children to see the movie, or were they both just willing to risk the lives of our children and other citizens to show that the USA and Canada cannot be intimidated?
  • What kind of nut would have brought their children, or attended a movie that had received threats of terrorism after 9/11 and what does that say about them. I do not think that people who run to danger for thrill seeking reasons instead of away from it to safety are brave I think that they are sick and in need of help and anyone who would bring their children into a possible potentially life threatening situation, just to prove they cannot be intimidated, should have those children taken away from them, because they do not deserve them until they get their priorities straight.I feel that we in the west only care about how we envision what the world should look like and what should be practiced in it in terms of governance, environmental controls, religion, culture and rights and freedoms? I feel that we have created a world where the word justice in reality has come to be defined as, “just for us.” I feel that we have created a justice system that is filled with double standards and half-truths, where punishments for breaking laws and treaties fall swiftly and mercilessly on our enemies, but are justified when we are the one found to be guilty.  We in Canada and in the USA might not  threaten to blow up movie theaters, but we do kill innocent people every minute of everyday in our pursuit of what we call justice and the spreading of our values.
  •  I think that before we begin bragging about of American and Canadian values and why we should be trying to get the adopted all over the world, that we should consider that those values allowed for
  • The government of Canada and the government of the USA have proven through their actions of late that they are willing to sentence and  condemn whole countries, the along innocent with the guilty to a future with no hope, where it is every citizen will die a slow torturous death due to hunger, thirst, or sickness, because our governments  have  imposed trade restrictions, sanctions, blockades and embargoes against their countries making it next to impossible to be able to get enough food to eat, clean water to drink and medicine to save the lives of their injured and sick, because we do not like what their governments stand for and yet both the government of Canada and the government of the USA seek to claim some high moral ground  protecting what in my opinion a  racist movie that glorifies the assassination, or the planning of it by the government of the USA. Why is this movie not considered promoting terrorism, or terrorist activity, or is it only these things when these actions are planned and carried out against members of the Western Alliance?
  • The intentional torture of prisoners by the USA that actually caused the deaths of some of the prisoners
  • That torture was casually explained away and justified, with the simple statement that after 9/11 they needed information, so that they exact revenge and that Canada actively participated in that effort.
  • Both the Canadian and American governments insist that the use of this type of methods as rectal feeding was not torture, but done to save lives and that waterboarding was just a way of seeking information and getting justice and not extremist in the slightest; just them protecting themselves.Is this really a movie that should have been made considering the USA’s recent history of not only sanctioning, the assassination of foreign leaders that it feels are a threat to their people and the USA, but putting a bounty on the heads of  leaders they are at odds with? If you were Kim Jong-un, would you consider this movie funny, or a serious potential threat? this is not the 1st movie of this nature that American movie makers have made and I guess it will not be the last, but I think that in the interest of doing what is morally right and decent they should be discouraged.

I think that the real lesson in the whole America’s Sony versus North Korea’s Kim Jon-un is that  this is an example of how small the world has become with the advances of modern technology. What has happened to Sony is a mild example of what can be accomplished by a knowledgeable person in procession of a sophisticated computer. This is irrefutable evidence that military might alone is not enough to keep even the most powerful of countries safe anymore. Any knowledgeable person in procession of a sophisticated computer has the capacity of either disarming a militarily strong nation, destabilising a nation’s economy, or turning a nations weaponry against it by hacking into its systems, or simply shutting down that country’s ability to use their technology. With hackers being among some of the most knowledgeable in the cyber world they have in effect acquired the power to influence how the world is to be run.

  • It should also be noted that when an Islamic nation, engages in this type of retaliatory action, no matter how obvious it fits the circumstances and reasoning and criteria that prompted the American and Canadian government to engage in torture and war after 9/11, they are called terrorists.

Why I Feel That Videotron Is A Greedy Company That Scams Its Customers


I hate greed and I hate feeling I am being gouged and that is how Videotron made me feel.

I hate greed and I hate feeling I am being gouged and that is how Videotron made me feel.

What is up Canada? I have been with Videotron for a very long time; not so much for their great service, their great equipment or even their great price, but more because I had always been with  them since getting cable in my 1st flat and there was a certain comfort in that for me.  I do not know remember when Videotron 1st decided to start renting you the equipment or offering to let you buy the equipment rather than do what was right by their customers and simply provide the equipment that their customers needed to be able to receive the channels that they wanted to beam into your living room for a hefty charge, but what a big money maker this has turned out to be for Videotron at the expense of their customers; in my  opinion.

I have Videotron  cable in three rooms and over the course of the years Videotron has rented me one receiver which I agreed to and sold me 2 without my knowledge and so obviously without my consent.  I am one of those foolish consumers that does not check their bill as long as it remains pretty much the same every month, so I never noticed that they had sold me the damn things. Why would I buy and take on the responsibility for the cost of upgrading out dated Videotron equipment and paying technicians to do repairs to Videotron equipment? It seems clear to me  why Videotron would  engage in this type of  shady business. I think that they did it because they got greedy and back then they had a monopoly in Quebec.  They did it because at the time they could get away with it they were the only game in townthey c in order not to have to replace their old equipment as it got out dated,  or as my recently did just stopped working.

Here is how this scam works: When I moved into my 41/2 room lower in a 6plex in Lasalle Que. I had the living room, spare room and master bedroom wired for cable, because of a promotion they were having although I only installed receivers for the master and the living room  Some years ago the Explorer 2000 Videotron receiver in my living room stopped working properly, so I called Videotron and their representative told me that the receiver that I had was out dated and that they would be sending a technician to my house to install a new receiver; I said okay. The repair guy came and installed an Explorer 3200 and I once again had cable in the living room and was informed that the installation was free.  I asked the repair guy what I should to do with the old box and he said, “whatever you want.” I thought that was strange, but I never gave it a 2nd thought. Since the box was working when it felt like it (after a few reboots) I decided to hook it up to the spare room outlet where I did not have a receiver, but had Videotron install the cable. Not long after the outdated box in the master bedroom emits sparks and shorts out.  I called Videotron again and again they sent a technician who replaced the outdated box with a new small no name receiver; I got my cable service back and this time they took away the box that almost caught on fire. I now owned 2 Videotron receivers and didn’t even know it.  What that means is now Videotron was off the hook for the updating, repairing and exchanging faulty equipment and all that had become my responsibility at my cost, without anyone at Videotron ever telling me and in my opinion Videotron has just scammed me.

Yesterday after disconnecting my Videotron Explorer 3200 so that I could rearrange my living room when it was time to reconnect, the receiver would not turn on, so once again after trying everything possible I was forced to call Videotron to see what could be done and that is when I found out that I was not renting the receivers, but rather that I somehow owned the receivers. According to the very nice Videotron rep representative I talked to on the phone, as far as Videotron was concerned I only had 3 options if I wanted to keep Videotron as my cable supplier and they were to:

  1. Rent a newer receiver from them and have it sent to me through the mail for no charge. No pick up allowed for renters.
  2. Rent a newer receiver from them and have a technician deliver and install it for $56.00
  3. Buy another receiver from them and start the whole mess all over again with me paying for equipment in order to make it possible for them to sell me cable service.

Note: Nothing that the Videotron representative offered me could be done within a day or 2.

  • Option 1 would take a minimum of 48hrs and really depended on mail delivery service.
  • Option 2 and 3, the service person could not even hazard a guess when they could send a technician. It being winter and the holiday season the service person explained that delivery would have to be determined based on the availability of a technician  and I would be notified about when that would be within a few days.

When I explained to the Videotron representative that I had my house phone with Bell, my internet with Bell and in light of what I was being told was seriously considering completing the package and giving Bell my cable business as well, the rep kind of laughed and said that Bell was their major competitor and they both were aware of each other’s pricing and I would find no major savings with Bell, but if I would be willing to give them my internet and phone business they would be able to save me some money. It was now my time to laugh as I told the rep that I could not imagine doing that and finding out that I was responsible for replacing all servers, modems and terminal boxes in my house as they needed to be replace, because they were outdated, or malfunctioned do to no fault of my own.  The Videotron rep said that they would e-mail me a quote for the 3 service package and send me a receiver in the mail and we hung up.

Note: I did get the quote from Videotron via e-mail and it wasn’t that far off of Bell, but it was all in French even though the whole conversation with the Videotron representative was conducted in English.  They could not even get that right and so I decided that I did not want to do business with a company that could not be bothered to communicate with me in my mother tongue when sending me a quote in which they were asking me to transfer files I had with another company to theirs.

I realised that it was time to look at my only option as I saw it and that meant taking my business elsewhere and so I picked up the phone and called Bell. They will have their technician at my house between 8am and noon on Tuesday, I could have had Monday, but I have a doctors appointment that day. To be fair the prices were in the same ballpark for sure, with the exception of the long distance perks guaranteed as long as I keep all 3 services with Bell. Bell will even offered to do the cancelation of my account with Videotron so I didn’t have to bother and I accepted.

I wonder if PKP will run the Parti Quebecois in the same manner if he becomes their leader, the province if he ever becomes the premier of Quebec and Quebec  as a country if it ever gains its independence under his watch, as he does Videotron?

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?