Archive

Posts Tagged ‘current-events’

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.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Consider these things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Members And Supporters Of The Western Alliance Seem To Be Still Asking Why Their Citizens Are Under Attack At Home And Abroad?


c557919c9244d4cb9576e67236544003What is up Canada?  There seems to be a lot of confusion within the governments and the people of the Western Alliance and their allies as to why they are being targeted by what they are describing as Islamic, Jihadi  terrorists by both home-grown and foreign, at home and abroad. That is all except for Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, seeking to look statesmanlike in an election year declared to anyone that still listens to him  and takes what  comes out of his mouth with any degree of  respect, or seriousness that:

  1. There is no difference between teens messing around in their basements and someone who is radicalized. Prime Minister Harper said, “It would be a serious offence no matter who you are.” “It doesn’t matter what the age of the person is, or whether they’re in a basement, or whether they’re in a mosque, To him  or somewhere else.”
  2. “We are being attacked by these Islamic Jihadi terrorist groups, simply because we are Canadian.”

Minister of Public Safety  and Preparedness Steven Blaney and Minister of Defense Rob Nicolson, keep changing the definition of what a Islamic Jihadi terrorist is.

  1. The latest definition of what a Islamic Jihadi terrorist is seems to be any Canadian citizen who for whatever reason commits an act of violence against the Canadian government, who has  declared publicly that they are an Islamic convert. Safety Minister Steven Blaney  referred to a man who was  a paranoid schizophrenic and who was suicidal, as being a Islamic Jihadi terrorist for no other reason than he stated publicly that he recently had converted to Islam.

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, is walking away from his cabinet post and politics, but not before he was successful in insuring that Canada’s international reputation in several areas was totally destroyed, such as:

  1. Canada’s reputation as a peace keeper.
  2. Canada’s reputation as a country that adhered to international law.
  3. Canada’s reputation as a country where all  refugees regardless of religion, culture and ethnicity were welcomed with open arms.
  4. Canada’s reputation for helping other countries in times of disaster without looking for repayment in terms of trade deals, or the acquiring things like a country’s water and mineral rights.

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, is walking away from his cabinet post and politics, after insuring that those who do not believe in the Western Alliance’s  way of governing a country; the Western Alliance’s religious beliefs; the Western Alliances culture,  know that Canada believes that the only other way to insure the world a long-lasting peace and the end to terrorism can only be achieved by:

  1. Canada’s supporting  and taking an active role in sanctions, embargos and blockades of one sort or another designed to totally decimate a perceived enemy’s economy.
  2. Canada’s participation in totally destroying the infrastructure of an enemy, through bombing and other means of military action
  3. Canada’s closure of embassies in Canada and abroad and by the  expulsion of certain diplomats from this country without provocation.
  4. Canada’s declaration that we are against the Palestinians taking Israel to the world court, for war crimes they feel that Israeli’s were guilty of perpetrating against them and that if they did not desist in such provocative action that Canada would consider withdrawing promised financial support to them.
  5. Proving that who do not believe as the Western Alliance does and refuse to convert willingly, will be forced to bow down, or be crushed by the Western Alliance’s military superiority.

The Western Alliance’s theory on what constitutes acceptable rules of engagement in war amounts to, “We make the rules of war and we expect those we fight to follow them no matter how one-sided and ridiculous they are; such as:”

  1. Their right to attack a sovereign nation, kill  their enemies in their own land and demand that there be no resistance and no retaliation of any kind, be it in the form of returned violence, or the seeking of justice in the international courts.
  2.  Their right to carry out assignation attempts, or put out contracts for the murder, or capture of their heads of state, or religious leaders and demand that there be no resistance and no retaliation of any kind, be it in the form of returned violence, or the seeking of justice in the international courts.
  3. Their right to intentionally target their civilian populations and some how at the end of the day be able to say that we are justified and demand that there be no resistance and no retaliation of any kind, be it in the form of returned violence, or the seeking of justice in the international courts.

I think that you are very naïve, delusional, or mad, or all of the afore-mentioned if you go into a war thinking that you can expect your enemy not to answer violence with violence, or that calling them terrorists would alter their use of what they think will win for them, because you do not approve of their methods.  Mentally I do not think that the west can win this war because their civilian populations have been convinced by their politicians that war can be won without loss of life to their side. This has allowed for the populations of the west to lose sight of the fact  that war is a dirty business where people on both sides die.  What is worse is that the populations of the west are now demanding that wars come to an end before they are won, because soldiers are dying in combat, or demanding that a war be fought without putting their soldiers at risk; both impossible tasks.  Why else would there be such a public outcry when a soldier is killed, be it at home or in another country, or a need for a vigil, and televised funeral every time  a soldier or a peace officer is killed in this war against terrorism?

I wonder does Stephen Harper’s reasoning as to why we are being targeted by what he calls Islamic Jihadi terrorist groups brought on by the same type of  ignorance he and his caucus seem to have adopted about how to deal with  the problems that have developed between First Nations and the rest of Canada? That age-old paternalistic attitude that makes it hard for him to believe that First Nations could actually want implemented what was written in the treaties they signed with the rest of Canada (self governance and nation to nation sharing of Canada for a start), when the government of Canada already does what is best for them?

Japan chose to take an active role in the war against terror and offered to donate $200 million dollars to aid the Western Alliance and their allies to aid them in their fight to degrade and defeat ISOL and then wonders why their citizens are being targeted by ISOL in Iraq; “Really?” The answer is simple one as far as “why” for Japan. ISOL used the deaths of Japan’s 2 citizens to:

  1. Teach them and the rest of the so-called neutral countries of the world that if you  wish to be considered a neutral party as far as these 2 fanatical entities are concerned, then  as a person, group, government or country, your actions and words can never belie that neutrality whether it be  spoken, financial, military, or any other form of support.
  2. When it comes to these 2 fanatical, relentless foes there can be no partial participation. These 2 evil entities have battled each other through history, using many different names, many different approaches and a whole bunch of promises that are but worms on a hook designed to catch fish.  The Western Alliance as  one fanatical side calls itself today promises rewards of this world (money, citizenship etc.,  if you will just join them in their war against terror, but what good is any of it, if your lifetime could be reduced to tomorrow? ISOL/The Islamic State as the other fanatical side calls itself today promises those who would support them rewards only diminished by one’s lack of imagination, in the glorious afterlife, (riches, women but no one has ever come back to say that this promise was true. In reality  Japan and the world is being shown once again that the  only real reward that either side can honestly give to any person, group, or government stupid enough to answer yea to either side’s call for support, is generations of  suffering, ending only when your citizens are mercifully put out of their misery by death.

Japan has hardened its heart and vows never to forgive those responsible for killing 2 of their citizens, all too soon Japan is forgetting that it was they as a country that chose to no longer be innocent bystanders, but rather become financial supporters of the Western Alliance, making them no longer a neutral country, but an ally of the Western Alliance sworn to degrade and defeat ISOL, or  at war with ISOL’S with all of the penalties that one suffers by making that choice.

The governments of France,  Great Britain, Australia, Germany, Canada and all other “coalition member states” are the Western Alliance,  the other evil entity in this never-ending war that seeks to dominate and make the world over in their image. This makes them no innocent victims in this war that has slowly infected the world with hatred, divisiveness and mistrust of anything that is different from themselves.  In my opinion they have already lost this war on terror despite their superior weaponry, because it is they who:

  1. Have made enemies of their own minority ethnic and religious citizens,  by treating them deplorably, especially when it comes to Muslims. In all of these countries Muslims are being treated with all of the mistrust and face the same accusatory suspicion as the Japanese people were exposed to in Canada during the 2nd world war.  Thank God for small mercies that this government has not seen the need to round them up for the safety of “real Canadians” and put them in internment camps.
  2. Have turned from their democratic principles that they claim to be fighting for and are changing all of their laws to take the power from the people and give it to the government, making these countries more autocratic than democratic.
  3. Their own citizens of European heritage and Christian upbringing are renouncing their faith, culture and heritage and picking up arms against them, both at home and abroad.

I would suggest to all of the governments  should to take a good look at their  foreign policies, their treatment of religious, cultural and ethnic minorities within their countries and the violence that they inflict on the innocent civilian’s in other countries when debating terrorist attacks in their countries and on their citizens abroad, for the answer to the question of ,”Why us?”

Food for thought:

  1. When as a nation you become so terrified of your enemy that you start arresting and detaining children as young as 8 years old as they did in France because he declared, “I am with the terrorists” and because he refused to take part in the national minute of silence for the victims of the slain, can you really consider yourself winning the war on terror or giving into an irrational nation wide hysteria?
  2. When the only way you can get followers is to raid villages of your own countrymen and kill off all of the adult men and leave all of the adult females alone, capture, rape all of the teenage girls and force them to wed and become forced converts and slaves, capture and force all of the male children to convert and join your army and force them to fight for your cause, have you gained real support for your cause or created an enemy that will secretly fight against you from within?

None of these measures have worked for either side and they never will, because you cannot starve a people, kill a person’s whole family, subject them to persecution, oppression and in some cases ethnocide and genocide and expect no retaliation of any kind.  This kind of behavior from anyone only leads to resistance and retaliation, leading to a vicious circle of revenge with every hostile action being met with one more horrific than the other, until the end of time. The answer to why us is clear and it is so simple, For the  Western Alliance (whose majority of member states are religiously Christian) they only need look to their bibles for the answer of why they are being targeted by Islamic Jihadi terrorists, “Live by the sword, die by the sword” is a saying derived from a saying of Jesus, quoted in the Bible, to the effect that if you use violence, or other harsh means, against other people, you can expect to have those same means used against you; “You can expect to become a victim of whatever means you use to get what you want.”

Let me conclude by saying that I think that there is no room in the world for the violence that we are seeing from either side of this ideological, religious and toxic war that has span multiple generations, turned nation against nation and threatens to cause another world war.  Innocent people are being killed, because of intolerance, fear mongering and divisive actions of 2 old and fanatical enemies. I speak of the Western Alliances role in this war not because I agree with the actions of ISOL, al Qaeda, or any other group that kills innocent people to make a political point. I speak to the Western alliances actions in this war,  because there are too many people in too many countries who think  wrongly that the Western Alliance’s use of violence and torture to convert those in other lands to its way of thinking is justified and understandable and that its deplorable treatment of its cultural, religious and ethnic minorities is justified to preserve the security of the majority. I speak to the role of the Western Alliance in this war, because to many of its citizens believe that  violence leads to peace, if the words behind the killing sounds good and makes their country and them look like heroes.

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.