Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Government of Canada’

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.

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.

“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.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

The Harper government did it for:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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