Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Canadians’

“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!

Advertisements

Can Journalistic Integrity, Or Journalistic Standards Of Excellence Be Used To Describe Canadian Political News Coverage?


c557919c9244d4cb9576e67236544003What is up Canada? Can journalistic integrity, or journalistic standards of excellence be used to describe Canadian political news reporting? I ask because it never ceases to amaze me how little it takes to manipulate and thwart the integrity, ethics and the effective functioning of the Canadian press and other news agencies, when it comes to their reporting of politically charged issues and trying to get news agencies to follow a politically charged story to its end.  I do not mean a story’s monetary making end, but seeing a story resolved and all questions that were of interest at its begining being answered. What was once fearless coverage and digging out of the facts and a relentless search for the truth to the bitter end, that has seen journalists willing to go to jail to uphold freedom of speech, expression and the right for Canadians to know what is going on in my opinion seems to have been pushed into the background and replaced by the fight to be the news agency with the best gimmick and providing the most provocative, insulting telling of the news found anywhere. Canadian news agencies do this in my opinion do this in an effort to entertain the most people, gain and keep the largest audience and sell the most ads for the highest possible cost. Unfortunately the side effects are in my opinion:

  • No follow through on important stories.
  • No focussing on stories because of  negative public opinion.
  • No reporting on stories, because of pressure, or threats from advertisers, or a withdrawing of government funding and advertising if applicable.
  •  Reporters giving the audience more of their personal opinion instead of just reporting the facts and allowing the audience the opportunity to make up their own minds on any given story.

Through greed the big news agencies in Canada have reduced the life expectancy of what was at one time considered to be a newsworthy story to a couple of weeks, there is little if any follow-up and sometimes the important dull story is ignored all together.  As Canadians we have gotten used to not knowing what  the ending is to news stories  and do not even feel like we are missing anything anymore. We have stopped asking what happened next and have grown accustomed to supplying our own ending with, using rumors, our assumptions and guesses to replace truth and facts.

How did the story of the refugees aboard the MV Sun Sea end, has it ended and where can you find the answer in Canadian news coverage?

  • 452 refugees (men , women and children) seeking asylum in Canada upon reaching our shores  end up thrown in jail for their efforts and are the cause of Canada’s whole immigration system being altered by the Conservative Party of Canada and soon after they are imprisoned their personal story vanishes from the news. From this point on all Canadians are told in the news is how the laws are being changed to protect the refugees and Canadians from those who would abuse the generous Canadian immigration system with government spin and propaganda. Eventually there was nothing in the Canadian news  about the 492 human beings imprisoned in jail over 4 years ago in a Canadian prison by the Conservative Party of Canada, their, releases, or deportations if any, or whether or not the process has been fair.   The big news agencies to me are no longer informing Canadians about what is going on that is important to Canadians, but rather following a story as long as it can be converted into cash dollars.

Unfortunately news agencies would consider the reporting on the scandals involving politicians personal life more important for Canadians to know about than what laws are being changed, enacted or repealed. Did you know about the story below. If not, ask yourself why not?

  • Bill C-304, introduced by Conservative back bencher Brian Storseth, repeals Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which bans hate speech transmitted over the Internet or by telephone getting passed its 3rd reading in the House of Commons and going to the senate was not considered important enough to even report.  Isn’t the fact that this bill takes away the authority of the country’s human rights commissions to investigate online hate speech and request that violating websites be taken down seem as relevant to Canadians as Rob Ford smoking crack cocaine, no matter what side of the issue they are on?  If the answer is yes than how could this  Conservative private members’ bill  only receive nest to no media attention, and even less commentary, while the Rob Ford story dominated the news and is still being referred to almost every day somewhere in the news?

More and more the news has become just another tool in the tool box of both  politicians and their political parties. No sooner do politicians or political parties say publicly what they would like to see happen with a political hot potato then presto the story disappears from the mainstream news and what happened in the story below becomes a recurring theme. This story was dropped  without a single protest in the news, no screaming for the freedom of the press on this one, no just compliance with the government’s request, as though Canada’s  national security depended on it. All of a sudden no more information from news agencies about allegations of harassment and sexual involving federal MPs from different political parties like:

  • What has happened if anything concerning the allegations of sexual misconduct made by?
  • Who were the 2 female NDP  MPs who refused to be identified but saw no problem giving very graphic detailed   interviews to anyone who would listen, against 2 male Liberal Party of Canada MPs who identities were on the front pages of every newspaper and on the lips of every television news panel and host in Canada and around the world?
  • The government wanted the story to be handled in private, the results hidden from Canadians, but was that the job of the news agencies to ensure?
  • How Canadian news agencies allow for the reporting of only half of an alleged story based on an interview with female accusers refusing to be identified while repeatedly naming the accused males and than just drop the story?

This is what I mean when I say that the Canadian news agencies have  become just another tool in the tool box of our politicians rather than the seekers and providers of current events important to Canadians as they unfold and continuing with that story until everything important in it has been reported and all questions have been answered.

Unfortunately the Canadian news agencies are even worse in their coverage of international politics committing the same mistakes covering international news as they do domestic; for example:

  •   Boko Haram kidnaps 300 little girls from school in Nigeria and the story dies inside of two weeks. The same Boko Haram  burns a town to the ground and is suspected of killing up to 2000 in one day and the story is all but ignored.   All over the Canadian news channels one commentator after another commented on how what was happening in Nigeria was being ignored, because of what had happened in France, to Charlie Hebdo.  Repeatedly there is a news bit saying that  what happened in Nigeria and the story shifts to minute by minute of the story as it unfolds in France and the reporters were not even apologetic.  This showed me that they believed that Canadians would want to know more about the France tragedy then the Nigerian and that there was more to be gained with reporting the story unfolding in France, rather than focussing on both equally.

I no longer have faith in Canadian news when it comes to politics, because it has become the instrument of government spin, rhetoric and propaganda.  With political reporters vying for jobs on television shows as paid political panelists, encouraged to give their personal opinions rather than sticking to the facts of a story, I find that they all try to out do one another slinging mud  on the politician / political party with whom they do not share the same views  and become spokespersons for the  politician/political party with whom they do.  I think responsible news coverage is a simple relaying all of the facts of a story and following it through to its end.  I believe that there is no room in a news story for a reporters personal opinion and innuendo. If the news is going to become like any other television show done for ratings and generated cash potential and news paper news articles are going to become little more than a reporters musing than these reports should be given to Canadians with a disclaimer that reads, “We are calling this news coverage, but be warned some or all of the content you are reading or hearing may or not be just the opinion of the reporter.” “We cannot vouch for the accuracy of the information you are getting, because we are more interested in keeping you entertained than whether or not you are getting the truth, because being entertained is what we think keeps you tuning in every day and you tuning in every day is what generates advertising dollars.”

“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.

What Do You See When You Look In The Mirror?


What Do You See When You Look In The Mirror?

What Do You See When You Look In The Mirror?

What is up Canada, what do you see when you look in the mirror? How could we the people of Canada allow ourselves to forget who we are, forget what we stand for and forget all that we have learned through our history whether it be good, or bad? How could we give up our rights and freedoms and settle for a life better suited to an ass, that toils for its master, with no say? How could we become a people who show no empathy, no sympathy and no compassion for others, because we are afraid to speak up for ourselves and so accept blindly what our elected officials say to be true? Why do we answer, “We believe you,” every time a politician asks, “Do you believe me, or your lying eyes?”  When did we as Canadians decide that we did not care as much about the suffering of mankind, the state of our environment, and our freedom of choice, as we did about turning a profit? If you would say that what I have just said is a lie, then why we do we as Canadians keep proving what our politicians are always saying is true? Why do we keep loyally voting them into office time and time again, when they insist that, “turning a profit in all that they do is what Canadians expect, want and elect their politicians to do? Politicians begin by only saying what they think will get them  elected and will only do what they think will get them re-elected, so who else’s fault could it be, that we are being governed by politicians who think that turning a profit for Canada is what we as Canadians want them to do more than anything else, if they want to get our vote? I honestly do not know how, or why we as people have allowed ourselves to become blind, deaf and mute to all that is happening around us, but I will say that we Canadians deserve everything that we are getting from this strong, stable, majority, conservative government, because,

  • It was us the Canadian voter who put them into  power with a majority government after they were forced to shut down their minority government for misleading parliament, which means they were guilty of intentionally misleading us the Canadian people.
  • It is us the voter who sit in our homes quietly as this government takes our rights and freedoms away from us one right and one freedom at a time,  instead of going into the street and creating such a scene that this government would be forced to change their ways.
  • It is us the Canadian  voter who says and does nothing while this government creates laws like Bill C-23  Fair Elections Act an act most experts and me feel is designed to allow this government to legally commit election fraud, as well as deny an element of voters that does not traditionally vote for their party (students and seniors), their  right to vote.
  • It is us the Canadian voter who  has allowed this government to pass Bill C-13 into law. We have not protested Bill C-13, even when we found out that it was not the anti cyber bullying bill it was promoted as, but a cynical and sadistic use of those who died like Amanda Todd   to reintroduce Vic Toews’s Bill C-30. We the Canadian voter say and do nothing while this government presses to legalize warrantless snooping and gathering of Canadian’s private internet information, by law enforcement personnel choosing instead to lend a blind eye to this government’s sidestepping of judicial scrutiny as well as transparency with the Canadian  people?
  • It was we the Canadian voter who cheered as this strong, stable, conservative government began using  time allocation to shut down debate and using prorogation to avoid answering difficult political questions, making record use of these two things and making a mockery  of the Canadian system of democratic governance.
  • It is us as Canadians who do nothing while this government unilaterally sends our military into war ill-equipped; not because we are unable to do better and still wish to do our part to help our allies fight the terrorist threat of ISIS, but because the conservative government decides time after time not to get new equipment, but rather to refurbish and refit old out dated equipment in order to save money by balancing its budget in time for the next federal elections in 2015, making political points with us the voter by sacrificing the safety and combat readiness of those who protect Canada and all Canadians.
  • It is none other than the Canadian voter who remains silent as this government takes away every support system that our veterans have come to rely on and deserve throughout the history of Canada. We sit on our sofas and watch as this government shuts down veteran’s hospitals all over Canada, refuses to help treat veterans suffering from PTSD and refuses to find and help all of the veterans that we all know comprise a great deal of the homeless people literally living, suffering and eventually dying on the streets that they helped to protect with their service.
  • It is us the voter who stand by and allow this government to mistreat the first nation people of Canada by forcing into law bills like Bill C-25 to legislate away the right to exist for some Mi’ckmaq First Nations People. Bill S-6, Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act: Proposed Amendments to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act (YESAA). Problem is that first nations people were not consulted for about the amendments at the time of the meeting involving first nations leaders and the government in other words the government tried to back door the amendments.
  • It is us the voter who would prefer to hear political rhetoric that be told the truth, like we witnessed when Canada’s Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney used a 10-year-old reports to create an immediate threat of an attack from ISIS directly on Canadian soil
  • It is us the voter who continues to allow this government to change who we are in terms of foreign policy when dealing with things like humanitarian assistance, by (a)refusing to help nations that have nothing we want in terms of trade, or strategic military value, or only offering to put in what the equivalent of what private donations can be collected by a government decided cut off date. (b)rewriting our immigration system so that it discriminates against certain type of refugees, who now will find themselves thrown in jail upon their arrival to Canada detained without benefit of trial and treated as a possible terrorist and enemy of the state, instead of made to feel welcome, helped and assured that at long last they have found safety and refuge in Canada. It is we the voter who sat quiet and debated intellectually amongst ourselves while this government imprisoned 492 Tamil men, women and children of the MV Sun Sea, because they believed that there were terrorists among them. To date how many were found to be terrorist? How many of these Tamil refugees that this government re-victimized once they stepped foot on Canadian soil were actually deported as proven terrorists? How many of them were resettled in Canada and how many of them still are in jail as the government delays and stalls the case in the courts? Was Bill C-4, the Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada’s Immigration System Act really necessary and why do we as Canadian voters not care?
  • It is us the voter who have allowed this government through our collective silence to make a mockery out of our democratic system of government. To allow for the most part agencies like Elections Canada, Privacy Commission, Parliamentary Budget Office and Auditor General’s Office  to be reduced or are in the processes of being reduced to little more than powerless  symbolic shells;  their decision-making and oversight power given over to the government’s ministers.
  • It is us the Canadian voter who have allowed this government to turn this great country into little more than another American state. The most common answer used  by this government when asked why Canada is doing anything concerning  environmental issues, economic issues and even issues concerning decisions about when to go to war is, “We have no choice but to do what the USA asks of us…”
  • It is us the Canadian people who are doing nothing as this government tries to remove judicial oversight from the our way of governance, by demeaning it and marginalizing it value, seeking to steal authority from the Supreme  Court of Canada, take its powers and add them to its own.

Canada is being governed by this government with the same lack of  democratic principles as the banana republics and maniacal dictatorships that we denounce as not representative of their people’s desires and needs, oppressive, dangerous to themselves and the rest of the world and in need of regime change.  How could we the people of Canada just bend down our heads and without even a fight, or a modicum of resistance allow a yoke to be put over our heads and a bit placed in our mouths? When the people of a country can  be made to forget who they are, forget what they stand for and forget all that they have learned through their history whether it be good, or bad they become little more than jackasses that toil for their master, with no say?

How could we become a people who pretend to feel no empathy for others, because we use the excuse of our world-renowned passiveness as our excuse to not speak up for ourselves and not to take meaningful action to bring down this despotic regime  with every legal means at our disposal?  Instead we make the choice every day to quietly go along with what our elected officials say we must do, even though the evidence proves that they lie about everything and are motivated solely by profit and personal political gain?  I do not know how, or why we as people have allowed ourselves to become blind, deaf and mute to all that is happening around us, but I will say that we Canadians deserve everything that we are getting from this strong, stable, majority, conservative government. What is up Canada? When you look in the mirror, is it the face of an ass that you see string back at you?

Supreme Court Of Canada Abandons Those Forced Into Prostitution


Terri-Jean Bedford, left, and Valerie Scott,  and a third woman, launched the constitutional challenge of Canada's anti-prostitution laws.

Terri-Jean Bedford, left, and Valerie Scott, and a third woman, launched the constitutional challenge of Canada’s anti-prostitution laws.

What is up Canada and what was the supreme court of Canada thinking when it rendered its decision, making most of Canada’s anti prostitution laws invalid in one years time?  The harm for this decision will be felt for years to come by those that are not in it of their own choosing.  This throwing out of most of the laws prohibiting the selling of sex for money and the living off of the avails of it will serve to embolden pimps, gangs and organized crime and will hurt runaway children caught up by pimps and terrorized into prostitution they are often sent to madams where they will be off of the street and out of the eyes of police walking the beat.  Pimps will open up whore houses, because they are a legal way for them to do business and who will be going around to check all of the locations that will be springing up as soon as the laws go down and at what cost and to whom?

“The high court struck down all three prostitution-related prohibitions — against keeping a brothel, living on the avails of prostitution and street soliciting — as violations of the constitutional guarantee to life, liberty and security of the person,” wrote Mike Blanchfield, in The Canadian Press.

The police are already overwhelmed in this country and are facing cuts to their budgets be they city police, provincial or the RCMP so where is the money going to come from to enforce any rules and regulations the government will have to impose on every bawdy house if it is to try to ensure that  the now legal bawdy houses provide a safe environment for their workers and a healthy, disease free staff for their clients to choose from?  I guess the government will want its end of the earnings so I am guessing that these whore houses will be taxed as any other legitimate business is and the government will make money selling the necessary permits to anyone wanting to open a bawdy house and I would guess that the workers will be registered and will be required to pay taxes as well which should raise some pretty interesting questions like are these tax paying sex trade workers eligible for unemployment insurance, welfare and will they be governed by the same laws as any other Canadian worker and entitled to all of labor rights found in the Canadian Constitution?

What of those Canadians who have been imprisoned for living off of the avails of prostitution although we now know that it is not a crime in Canada and has never been a crime in Canada according to the supreme court of Canada will they be made whole for the loss of life they were put behind bars illegally and their criminal record erased and expunged?  Will the possessions of all sex workers that were taken from them be returned to them? (The money, the houses, the jewelry etc.) Does the decision of the supreme court of Canada that strikes down this countries anti-prostitution laws on the grounds that they are unconstitutional open the government up to a class action suit from all of the sex trade workers throughout Canadian history who have had their constitutional rights violated willfully and knowingly by the police and the courts? I am not being a wise guy here, but raising a question, because if the court says that Canada has no right and never did to treat selling sex as a crime because it is not illegal to sell sex for money in Canada, than the police, the courts and the country has wronged a group of innocent people for a very long time intentionally and there is nothing in the decision that would stop sex workers from seeking damages from the government, the police, or the courts.

How do we protect the people who are being forced to into selling themselves for money, by pimps and organized crime? Am I to understand that a man or woman will be able to legally buy the sexual services of a child depending on the age requirement in every province for consensual sex legally a year from now, without fear of being arrested by the police and the courts sending him/her to jail? (In Quebec the age for consensual sex is 14 years old)  All that would be needed to have is a signed contract or consent form or perhaps a video taped interview and the pimp and the madam would be able to claim consent and who would be able to prove if the signature was coerced or given freely?

Finally what does this say about Canada as a country and Canadians as a people?  What does it say about us morally, about our values and our ability to see right from wrong, if we say that it is okay to prostitute oneself for money?  Why stop the drug addict from taking dope by making taking dope a crime and the selling of that dope illegal and what is the difference? Why is it legal to intervene in anything that a consenting adult choose to engage in or make a living doing as long as there is informed mutual consent on all sides of the equation?  Does society not have an obligation to protect the weak and more fragile from those who would prey on them and feed off of them, or are we now like the beast in the wild?  Can a society flourish in an atmosphere of anything goes, where there is no moral compass, no value system, no right and wrong and where only constitutional rights count.

What of the rights of those of the majority of Canadians who do not think that prostitution should be legal and do not want a whore house on every block, the majority of Canadians for whom the anti-prostitution laws were put into place for in the first place?  These laws were not arbitrarily put into place at the whim of some politician.  The anti-prostitution laws were hard-fought for and enacted because Canadians thought that:

  • It was immoral to buy sex from a human being whether they wanted to sell themselves or not.
  • It was necessary to protect those who were being forced into selling sex for money by another person or other persons.
  • It was necessary to stop the spreading of sexually transmitted diseases.

If the highest court in the land thought that it was doing the right thing and making it safer for sex trade workers by striking down the anti-prostitution laws all I have to say is that I think they were very wrong; now where there used to be consequences and some means of deterrent and protection under the law in a year there will be none. I have to ask again, “What is up Canada?”

Interesting Stories In Canadian Politics #2


Conservative Senator declares war on Capital Hill

Conservative Senator declares war on Capital Hill

Headline in Canada.com, published  by Jordon Press on December 6, 2013, 4:26 pm reads: “Conservative Sen. Jean-Guy Dagenais accused of unleashing ‘personal attack’ on NDP MP Charmaine Borg”  What I found so interesting in this story is the reasoning of Conservative Senator Jean Guy Dagenais in writing this letter to NDP MP Charmaine Borg. Everyone in Canada, and around the world knows that this Senate is embroiled in scandal when it comes to the misuse of travel expenses and household allowance expenses.  The fact that the Conservatives have a majority in the Senate and that they also seem to be in the majority of the scandals in both chambers and even in the PMO‘s office does nothing to improve how Canadians feel about this non elected body of government.  This government is an embarrassment to Canadians and the flyer was an attempt to rid Canadians of an ineffective, embarrassing body of the government that has gotten worse since Steven Harper added his patronage appointments to the senate,   so again I ask why the personal attack on NDP MP Charmaine Borg for stating the obvious.  Let’s compare the two individuals by the facts as they are only with no hypothetical analysis.

  • NDP MP Charmaine Borg ran in a federal election and won it and earned the right to represent the citizens her riding.  Conservative Sen. Jean-Guy Dagenais ran in a federal election and lost, but thanks to a patronage appointment by Steven Harper gets to sit in the senate and without the consent of the people represent them.
  • NDP MP Charmaine Borg spoke out about the corruption in the senate and voiced her opinion that the senate as a political entity was useless and that certain documented crooks were giving the senate a bad name. In a politically motivated flyer which she had mailed to everyone in her riding she suggested to the people who elected her to represent them in such matters that she thought that the senate should be abolished.  Conservative Sen. Jean-Guy Dagenais on the other hand has taken to defending the very same senate that he campaigned to rid Canada of when he ran in a federal election as a Harper, Conservative MP and lost.  At that time he was agreeing with his party and it would seem NDP MP Charmaine Borg that there was no place in Canadian politics for a corrupt, useless and non elected senate.
  • NDP MP Charmaine Borg spoke of ridding the people of Canada of a corrupt unelected body of politicians that are totally controlled by the PMO, by virtue of  the fact that they are chosen for their jobs by the Prime Minister of the day.  Charmaine Borg also knows enough about how the senate operates to know that whatever equalizing force the senate was intended to be, has been corrupted. The senate  (the place of sober 2nd thought) is no longer a senate where people of  all political stripes with allegiances to no political party, come together in a non-partisan undertaking and ensure that the people of Canada were best being served by the politicians they entrusted to represent their needs. (The sole purpose of senators never having to be worried about being fired was to ensure that they could look upon proposed legislation in non partisan way),   Conservative Sen. Jean-Guy Dagenais spoke of  the senate of years gone by, the need for NDP Charmaine Borg to go to the library and understand what the senate purpose is and its intended purpose was.  Conservative Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais decided that the best way to protect his now beloved senate was to mount a personal attack, instead of speaking to the senates good work for example and what purpose  the senate has in Canadian politics today in reality and not in terms of the ideology of past politicians, before the corruption hit.
  • NDP MP Charmaine Borg offered her opinion to her constituents and the people of Canada concerning the Canadian Senate as an elected MP which is her right as is every Canadian, politician or not.  NDP MP Charmaine Borg dared to say that she feels that the senate needs to be abolished and replaced with an elected senate, so they to can be held accountable by the citizens of Canada for their actions on election day, even though her political party desire is to reform the senate rather than abolish it.    Conservative Sen. Jean-Guy Dagenais offered his opinion to her in a personal letter suggesting that she is too young to understand the value to Canadians in such patronage appointments, that she is a whiny female and that she did not deserve to be elected disregarding the fact that when they both ran, he lost and she won / she is an elected official and he is not.
  • NDP MP Charmaine Borg has declared war on a corrupt senate that has lost its significance and is no longer doing the job it was intended to do in the non-partisan manner it was intended to utilise, making it just an unelected advantage to the party governing at any given time.  She states correctly, if the senate is to be an arm of the government of the day then it should be elected.  Conservative Sen. Jean-Guy Dagenais  has declared war on everyone and anyone who dares to speak ill of the senate, or call for its end, especially politicians not in his conservative party.  This senator insists that there is no corruption and that attacks or mention of the obvious fundamental flaws, or the never-ending scandals plaguing todays senate is declaring war personally against him and will be met with hostility and swift action of the sort he displayed against NDP MP Charmaine Borg.

Until his letter I as a citizen of Canada thought that there was an outside chance that the senate could just be reformed and I have written so, but back then I thought the senate got it, knew they were acting wrongly and needed to change their ways and would support changes that got them back on the course where they are representing Canadians the way it was intended when the idea of a Canadian senate was conceived and return to a chamber of sober 2nd thought. Instead of apologies for their wrong doing we get attacks and threats of war being declared against officials we have elected to represent us, who would dare to speak out and call for the corruption to end.  It would appear that all the senators of which there are only Liberals and Conservatives think that they are being unfairly criticised and persecuted in and out of the House of Commons, or at least their leaders in the Senate do and if you think that you are innocent then you think that you have no need to change what you are doing.  Since I read the letter and the comments that followed out of the senate I say, “Scrap it and start over”.

Wallin, Duffy, Brazeau Feeling The Sting Of A Demagogue


Are Senators Pamela Wallin, Mike Duffy and Patrick Brazeau acting like spoiled children who have been caught doing something wrong and not liking that they are being punished? Are they just whining and throwing temper tantrums, or have they in truth been thrown under the bus by Prime Minister Harper and the Senate for political expediency? Are Wallin, Duffy and Brazeau feeling the sting of a demagogue that they help into power and convinced Canadians to vote for? I wonder if the three have learned anything  about due process, or if anyone of them have learned that real people get hurt when their rights are sidestepped for expediency and due process of law is taken from them, or do they only see their cases as wrong and the denial of due process to the 450 Sri Lankan refugees for example, as still okay?

Given the fact that the independent audit done at the Senate’s request by a firm that the Senate chose  said yes they wrongly put in for expenses they were not entitled to and that they should pay those monies back, but said also that they could not find any reason to believe or prove that any of the senators had intentionally violated the public trust, or willfully filed incorrect expense refunds, is the harsh penalty being voted on represent justice being served?  The independent audit report also said that the rules governing refundable expenses was full of grey areas, easily misinterpreted.

Great stock has been put in how the money was paid back especially in mike Duffy’s case and I guess I do not get it.  As long as it was not paid for by the tax payer what difference does it make who privately helped mike Duffy?  What I am really having a hard time with though is that each of these senators have proof that they sought the advice of senate higher-ups as to whether or not claiming the expenses was correct and they were all given the green light.  Prime Minister Harper stood up in the house of commons and said that he went over all of Pamela Wallin‘s expenses personally and found them all to be in order.

If we leave out what the independent audit had to say ands the fact that these senators seemed to have had the approval for their expenses before the filed for the reimbursements and say that too bad they should have known better and should be punished anyway then the question is if they have been found to not have intentionally done anything wrong than what is an appropriate penalty for what they have done.  Obviously repaying the money back is not the answer. Ruining their personal and professional reputations and disgracing them world-wide, does not seem to be enough.  The Prime Minister throwing them out the Conservative party of Canada caucus is not enough of a punishment, so I ask what is enough?

I thought as did the auditors that if they unintentionally filed their expenses wrong that they should have to pay it back the loop-hole closed in the rules, but never did I imagine that they would be punished in the manner that they are being punished without due process, because (a) The Senate of Canada is trying to save face and as it attempts to preserve the dignity of the senate by suspending without pay.  (b) The Prime Minister would throw them from caucus after claiming that at least one of the senators had filed correctly.

I think that the 3 senators were guilty of arrogance and should have repaid the monies in question right away once they found out that they had done something wrong innocently perhaps but wrong none the less.  I do not know how they figured that just because they believed that they were right meant that they did not have to repay the monies.  The fact that they were in fact bilking the tax payers out of money should have been enough for them to state they were sorry, it was a mistake on their part and they would be returning the ill-gotten gains immediately, as it was never their intention to do anything illegal.  Instead they maintained that they found a loophole that allowed them to rip off Canadians to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars and that they intended to fight tooth and nail to keep their ill-gotten gains.  Now although this is not a very nice way for a senator to act and will did not endear them to voters and did cause their party embarrassment and political percentage points, the truth of the matter is that they had broken no Canadian laws and so again we must ask above and beyond them paying the money back were they deserving of any other punishment and is the punishment they got in the best interest of seeing justice served, or was this really a bad case of taking a hammer to swat a fly.

Lastly let us begin to consider due process and were the accused given it in this case.  As much as it pains me to say so being no fan of any of them, I do not think that they were.  In fact I think that they were singled out and offered up as sacrificial lambs by the senate and by Steven Harper to save their own political hides.  What are the odds that 3 conservative senators hand-picked by the Prime Minister found guilty of defrauding the Canadian people would all turn on him and publicly him and accuse him of using them and then abandoning them for no other reason but to look innocent of any wrong doing himself and deflect attention to them instead of him? I think that they because they have been betrayed by the leadership in the conservative side of the Senate and have been thrown under the bus by the Prime Minister as well there is the small matter of a thing called due process of law that they are being denied by his order.

I do think however that there could be a silver lining in this whole stupid affair and I would hope that maybe in the future when bills are put before the remaining senators, that they would seriously consider:

  • All of the implications of bills that would seek to deny anyone due process of the law and that they would think twice before voting it through without seriously considering is the law a just and fair law and is this how Canadians act.
  • That without due process of law we have become what we say we hate, a nation where the law means nothing and can be changed at the whim of the government, or ruler of the day.
  • That maybe it is not so good to rubber stamp laws a bill that would stop unionised activities, force people back to work, keep immigrants in jail all without due process of law.
  • That they should not be so easily persuaded to follow the party line and hopefully in the future vote their consciences and what they know to be right, just and Canadian instead.

I think that the Harper government has proven the old adage that states, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”  Everyone should be moving to reduce the power of a Prime Minister with a majority government and put into play a mechanism to remove a Prime Minister who is not acting within the Canadian Charter of Rights, or who is caught consistently misleading parliament and Canadians.  Harper right now has more power than any dictator and is behaving like one.  Question: Does democracy begin with the calling of an election and end after it? I ask this question, because that it what it looks like to me if a government gets in with a majority,  omnibus budget bill, time allocated debates used to cut short debates, non compliance with access to information regulations, putting sole power of deciding issues in the hands of individual ministers who are controlled by the Prime Minister.

Now that Steven Harper has opened Pandora’s Box and revealed to all political parties the full extent of the power that a majority government has at its disposal, how many governments and their leaders do you think  will be able to resist using the full extent of a majority government now that it has been done? Now that the line has been successfully crossed and laws have been changed to give the Prime Minister of Canada elected with a majority government the power of a dictator over a people subdued by democratic values and principle who are not predisposed to using violence to seek political reform, will any political party ever change the laws back, or create new laws to better represent true democratic practice in government?  The line between democracy and demagoguery has been crossed and I fear that  without people protesting in the streets, maybe even refusing to go to work and virtually bringing all activity, all economic gain in this country to a screeching halt,  every time there is a majority government elected no matter what level, no matter what political stripe demanding that they do what is best for Canadians. I am a Canadian who is tired of seeing much-needed changes delayed and denied Canadians because opposition parties are rejecting things that are good for Canadians, because they feel that is what an opposition party is supposed to do; I want to see the end of such clearly partisan voting and start seeing more bi-partisan voting that best reflects what is good for all Canadians.  If we the citizen, we the voter do not grab the bull by the horns I think that we will see politicians, leaders and parties step outside the spirit of a democracy and democratic principles more and more and we will once again be thrust into a democratic farce, such as we a living with now, or in the times of minority government get nothing done, because of partisan posturing?  I think that the choice is ours.  What is up Canada?