Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Justin Trudeau’

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note:

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

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

Advertisements

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?

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.

Are Machine Guns For The RCMP, New Powers For Our Politicians, Police And Spies To Snoop, Or The More People We Kill The Answer To Canada’s Terrorism Problems?


c557919c9244d4cb9576e67236544003What is up Canada? Are machine guns for the RCMP, new powers for our politicians, police and spies to snoop on Canadians at home and while they are traveling, or the more people we kill, the answer to Canada’s Terrorism Problems?  Has anything that this government has done since they decided to join the USA in exacting its never-ending revenge on all the Islamic states in the world for the few Islamic extremist who ordered and carried out the attacks  in the USA on 9/11 helped to protect Canadians from terrorist threats and attacks in Canada, or abroad? I do not think so. Has anything that the USA led allies including Canada has done up to this point helped to reduce the number of terrorists, or terrorist attacks in the world, or has it all gotten a whole lot worse? I would say that for Canada it has gotten a whole lot worse since everything that happens of a violent nature is deemed to be a terrorist attack and in some way related to radicalization of a young Canadian into a Islamic terrorist group.    It is like the more power the government takes for itself, the better they arm the RCMP and the more snooping power they give to the police and our spies, the less Canadians are being protected. We are being asked in the name of  aiding in our own protection by this government and these protection agencies to give up our rights listed below and are getting nothing in return, because all of these things do not seek to solve the problem, but instead seek to mask the problem.

  • Right to have the police obtain a warrant before they start collecting information regarding our internet,  our cellphones, or anything else digital.
  • Right to have the police get a warrant before they search our homes and other private property from which they feel may contain evidence of a crime that has been committed or will be committed somewhere in the future.
  • Right to a fair and open trial based on evidence deemed relevant to the case by a judge, with evidence and witnesses that can be cross-examined and allow for ourselves to be able to be arrested without a warrant and to be judged by hearsay from witnesses that will no longer be identified and can not be cross-examined even by the presiding judge.
  • Right to travel freely whenever and wherever we want, because somewhere at sometime some cop, or  pencil pusher working in a policing, or spying agency somewhere within Canada or within the Five Eyes has determined that you could be a home-grown terrorist looking to engage in terrorist activity abroad, based on evidence that no one else including you, or a judge will ever see.

None of the things mentioned above are the way of doing things in Canada, but they are in line with how nations we call oppressive regimes operate.  The Harper government is changing Canada into a  country where the government and the policing agencies do not need to answer, or prove just cause to an independent judicial oversight body for their actions when restricting, or denying the rights of its civilian population.  Even while Stephen Harper and his government are bombing other countries, participating in the torture of captured enemies and engaging in diplomatic isolation tactics for other nations who they deem to be oppressive regimes, Stephen Harper and his government are rewriting the laws of Canada to give themselves and Canadian policing and spying agencies the very same power over Canadian citizens as those countries we call backward, lawless, inhumane, totalitarian and anti democratic. How he still insists on the validity of Canada’s claim to be a leader in the fight for democratic governance and an end to social and legal injustice with a straight face, I do not know. I do know however that lasting peace can not be achieved through coercion such as trade  sanctions embargoes, diplomatic isolation and in some cases helping to enforce no fly zones, naval blockades and even going to war to unseat what we call rogue governments.  History has shown that these tactics only increase resentment and the hardening of positions.

I do not think that any of the measures in the new laws will help protect Canadians from any type of terrorist threat, whether it be foreign, or domestic, because none of these measures address the real problems that must be solved before peace can be won. Everyone made fun of Justin Trudeau when he talked of getting to the root source of the problems that are causing young Canadian males to turn away from their government and country and try to go abroad and fight for organizations like ISIS and kill Canadians and her allies. Everyone tried to make Justin Trudeau seem idiotic when he said the answer to the war on terrorism could only be found by finding out what the root causes are that make people chose to be terrorists in the first place and relieve the source of such desperate actions, but I think in both scenarios Justin Trudeau was right.

Canadian home grow terrorist attacks: How many people can we put in jail, stop from traveling abroad and even if we could stop them all what are we asking for more soldiers run down in the street, more shootings at historical sites, or attacks on government building, police stations, maybe city halls, national assemblies, or parliament hill once again?  Is this so much better than finding out what is hurting people and driving them to commit such senseless acts of violence, whether they are real or imagined? I like Justin Trudeau do not think so.

Neither do I believe that arming the RCMP with machine guns will keep them from getting killed when they are ambushed.  those that died in Moncton did not die because they were out gunned they died because they were caught off guard, ambushed and had no chance to defend themselves. Maybe the Harper government could make those types of weapons that killed the members of the RCMP illegal in Canada instead of insisting that they are the right of every Canadian to own, or barring that reinstate the Long Gun Registry so that those officers who answer emergency calls are not walking into incidents where the  criminal has the potential of being better armed.

Terrorism abroad:  The USA and it’s better gunned allies have bombed, civilian targets and military targets in almost every Islamic nation trying to win it’s so called war on terrorism. These so called anti terrorist groups have crippled economies, denied access to trade markets, starved and denied innocent men , women and children food, water, medicine in an effort to break them and force them to give in to what the participating countries in the Western alliance want, which in my opinion means the end to their existence as free independent Islamic nations; much the same as they did to the North American Indians, the people of the African nations especially South Africa, the people of Hawaii and the Polynesian Islands.

They have named themselves, The Coalition of The Willing, The Western Alliance and made it clear that they support Israel no matter what crimes against humanity it perpetrates and I am sure in the eyes of most of the Islamic nations they invade, bomb, occupy and kill innocent people they are called terrorists and considered enemies that need to be resisted by any means necessary.  In its latest act of stupidity the Harper government along with the Tom Mulcair’s NDP and the Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party of Canada have come together to acknowledge that the Palestinians not only have reason, but it is also their right under international law  to sue for Israel for what it considers war crimes that Israel has perpetrated against them and in the same breath denounce such an attempt calling such an attempt ill-advised and detrimental to a lasting peace achieved through negotiations.  The USA and its allies are not only denouncing the Palestinian effort  to avail themselves of their legal right to sue for justice, but are threatening to withhold a promised financial aid package, claiming that to sue Israel for the war crimes it has committed, is counter productive to a negotiated settlement with Israel for a 2 state solution.   How productive is giving these people no solution other than doing what they are told? The USA and their allies have only one offer on the table for the nations of Islam and that is to accept the USA and their allies which includes Israel as their betters and accept the paternalistic arrangement that would leave them without a way to defend themselves militarily, legally in the world court, as well as leave them financially dependant on handouts from it handlers, who at anytime could simply withdraw that support to get compliance to new rules and regulations imposed by the west, as they are doing to Palestinians right now.  How can any sane person in this day and age think that this is the road map to peace in the Middle east or anywhere else.  If you killed my grandfather, grandmother,  father, mother, uncles and aunts and now you are killing my children, my grandchildren, nephews and nieces and call them collateral damage, do you think that you are making more terrorists as you call them, or allies ready to work towards peaceful solution?

The answer to the terrorist threats both international and domestic is very clear, but is being muddied by glory seeking greedy politicians and a fanatical leader in the Middle East who does not want a peaceful negotiated settlement and has stated publicly that he would not allow for a 2 state solution as long as he is the leader of his country.  If countries like Canada who claim to want terrorism to end  and be replaced by peaceful negotiated settlements and truly seek the end to the never-ending wars and the senseless deaths of millions around the world and now at home to end, all sides must be able to see the value in such a brokered peace. I think there needs to be:

  • Support for those who work towards a legal solution whether it is in the world court, or at the negotiating table and condemnation for those who do not, no matter which side dispute we align ourselves with.
  • A realistic offer for peace put on the table.
  • An understanding in the west that it cannot win this war by employing bombing raids that target civilians, embargoes and trade sanctions that end up starving and denying medical supplies to innocent men, women and children, by creating no fly zones that allow the side we are on to bomb the other side.
  • An end to the USA and its allies putting wanted dead or alive contracts on the heads of other countries leaders.
  • An end to all of the interfering by Canada and its allies with another country’s right to seek legal recourse within the confines of international law.

The war is now in our country thanks to Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada and their unfair, unjustifiable, unconditional support of Israel no matter how many innocent lives they take, no matter how they violate treaties, and no matter how much land they illegally occupy and resettle.  John Baird thought only to laugh at the Palestinian display of their ill feeling for Canada and in fact sought to mock their efforts.  John Baird acknowledged that the only reason Canada supports Israel unconditionally, because it is the only democratic government in the Middle East .  The names freedom fighter and terrorist mean little and are used by the west according to what side of a confrontation they backing at the moment.  When the Russians were in Afghanistan they armed the Afghanis and called them freedom fighters, today they call those who would repel them and reject their control the way they repelled the Russian invaders, terrorists. Canada used to call the Tamils of Sri Lanka freedom fighters, until we decided to back the other side who we knew were guilty of crimes against humanity, Canada now calls them terrorists now as well and has put them on a terrorist list.  There are too many, Palestinians, Syrians and Afghanis living in Canada for example to just keep being a party to the killing of their innocent loved ones back where they originated in the name of democracy and peace and expect no type of retaliatory action from any of them, in any fashion, ever.

Now thanks to Stephen Harper and his government we have Canadians joining terrorist groups and  killing Canadians at home and abroad. What is up Canada, do you think we are really winning the war on terror, either internationally, or domestically? Do you really think that giving the RCMP machine guns, policing agencies and spy agencies the power to violate your privacy rights and the government the authority to remove someone’s citizenship will really help to keep you safe? I don’t.

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?

Interesting Stories In Canadian Politics

November 28, 2013 3 comments

Head line  for CBC.ca reads, Justin Trudeau angers NDP by quoting Jack Layton and goes on to say,

  • Trudeau said New Democrat Leader Tom Mulcair is different from Layton, his predecessor.”
  •   “Make no mistake, the NDP is no longer the hopeful, optimistic party of Jack Layton. It is the negative, divisive party of Thomas Mulcair.”
  • That he stole a line from a Jack Layton speech when he said, “It is the Liberal Party tonight that proved hope is stronger than fear.”

I did not know that speaking the name, referring to, or heavens forbid quoting the late Jack Layton former leader of the New Democratic Party was somehow blasphemy, sacrilegious, or disrespectful unless you were in the NDP party, a family member, or a  supporter of his?  I must have been asleep when he was raised to God status from that of politician  and ordinary human being.  The NDP refer to dear old Jack whenever they can and use his name to sell a political brand that is not there anymore and that died with Jack Layton and the selection of  the Mad Hatter, Tom Mulcair as the new leader of the NDP.

I have heard quotes made by many people being used by all political parties and all political leaders, including Jack Layton. They all were quoting both the living and the dead, so what makes Jack Layton supporters think that it is taboo  to utter the words, or use a quote that Jack Layton used his breath to speak?  The problem the NDP has to deal with is their brand and by this I mean that:

  • Tom Mulcair is not and never will be, Jack Layton, nor does he want to be.
  • Tom Mulcair has his own vision on which direction the NDP should be moving in  and I do not think that his vision has anything to do with Jack Layton’s dream; barring the dream of winning a federal election.
  • It is no longer Jack Layton’s Party, it is Tom Mulcair’s Party now and it is wrong to expect nothing to change, or to expect Tom Mulcair to follow in the footsteps of Jack Layton.
  • If the NDP are to win in the next federal election, they need to stop asking, or expecting Jack Layton to lead them from the grave.

Everything that Justin Trudeau said in his interview about the NDP and Tom Mulcair is true.  Unfortunately for NDP supporters and party members, they elected the wrong person to lead their party, if they wanted to have a party that reflects the late Jack Layton’s dreams; to get that they should have made Olivia Chow, the late Jack Layton’s wife, the leader of the NDP.  Tom Mulcair has always went his own way, been abrasive in his style and in my opinion is and has always been a political opportunist of the worst kind.  Tom Mulcair is not a deal maker, but he is a power seeker.  Tom Mulcair is a street fighter, who will do whatever it takes to win even if that means pretending to agree with the principles and direction that Jack Layton believed in, he proved that during his leadership bid and by winning the leadership race of the NDP. Tom Mulcair is proving today that he does not care how he gets to be prime minister of Canada, what tactics he has to employ to achieve this goal, or how dirty he has to play. I believe that Tom Mulcair does not see winning as secondary to doing good for Canadians as the late Jack Layton was often heard saying; I believe that Tom Mulcair sees doing good for Canadians as secondary to his becoming prime minister of Canada.

Another funny, but interesting thing is the headlines on the internet today, like that of news.nationalpost.com  that read, Chow and Mulcair fume after Trudeau uses Layton’s dying words to denounce NDP in victory speech”  I watched and listened to Olivia Chow’s response to reporter’s repeated prompting trying desperately to get her to say that she was angry at Justin Trudeau, to which she responded, “I am surprised that he would use the words of Jack, but we all know that it is Harper we need to get rid of right?”   At no time did she give the slightest indication visually, or verbally that she was angry, or fuming as the  headlines suggested in most of the press coverage that I have seen.  The fact is that the reporters had to tell her what Justin Trudeau had said and her response was, “I am surprised that he would use the words of Jack, but we all know that it is Harper we need to get rid of right?”   It would seem that the press was trying to create a story once again where there just was none, instead of sticking to the facts and reporting the story that was obvious and factual.  I find it crazy that for the most part members of the Canadian press can not be counted on to simply report the news, honestly, factually, without trying to invent hysteria, divisiveness and without putting their personal bias and feelings into the story.

I am no lover of Tom Mulcair, but then again I was no lover of Jack Layton either, but I do believe that once you are a leader of anything you must lead your way.  I think that the supporters of the NDP need to let go and let Jack Layton rest in peace. They need to stop looking at Jack Layton as if death has elevated him to saint hood, or demigod status. Jack Layton was and always will be just another human being, who was a loved and admired politician, husband, father and friend. In life he was able to be quoted, criticized and compared to others and so he is in death as well.

I think that Jack Layton would agree with Justin Trudeau’s comments, because they are true and I think that Olivia Chow kind of agreed with what Justin Trudeau had to say about the NDP since Tom Mulcair took over as leader of the party. Although pressed by reporters over and over, Olivia Chow never made a single attempt to say that she disagreed with what Justin Trudeau said about the changes in the NDP’s brand and the negative, divisive style of politicking that has become the norm for the NDP, since Mulcair took over the leadership of the party.  Had one member of the press or the news picked up on that fact, they would have had a truthful scoop, but I guess they were too busy creating the news to just report it.

I find that this is an interesting story in Canadian Politics, because it shows how crazy Canadian politics has become; how sensationalized the coverage of each and every story is being made in the press and how we as Canadians are better served by live televised reporting.  At least with televised reporting we can see and hear for ourselves what is said and the reaction to it and not have to rely on a system of reporting that is fighting for its very survival and thinks that trafficking in gossip and non factual depictions of a situation is the best way to boost their readership, increase their market share and attract more advertising  dollars.

Is This What Gay Pride Is Really All About


Is this what all the fuss is all about?
Is this what all the fuss is all about?

Does the picture above represent what gay pride is all about, or what gays, lesbians and their heterosexual supporters have been fighting for?  Is this all there is to the struggle that has been fought  for  so long and so hard and that has cost people their freedom, their blood and their lives?   If it is not then why do the organisers of this parade allow these people to behave in this manner during what is called a gay pride parade and if the parade belongs to these exhibitionists then why do those who find this type of behavior offensive say so publicly  and have their own parade? This type of behavior certainly raises and eyebrow and grabs a headline or two, but I think it also makes a mockery and a joke out of the freedom of speech and expression argument and does not further any of the more serious issues, like the right to adopt children for gays and lesbians around the world.  I just think that it is a shame that the entire gay and lesbian movement’s chance to promote their fight  for equality under the law has to be sabotaged every year all over the world, because a  few exhibitionist can’t keep their clothes on for a good cause.

Is this what all the fuss is about?

Is this what all the fuss is about?

I must say that the way some gays and lesbians chose to celebrate their freedom of expression during the gay pride celebrations  in Montreal this year left me wondering what all the fuss was about, if all there was to their sense of pride was stripping down and giving a X-rated performance at what is billed as a family event.  I have gay and lesbian friends and I was ashamed for them.   This to me is behavior that would not be tolerated by the police, or the city if these idiots were not gay.  Call me a prude, but to me this is not appropriate behavior or how one should conduct themselves in public no matter what their sexual preference is.  It is quite clear to see that there are children in the crowd and this obvious, “I do not give a crap about who is in the crowd, or who might find this type of public display offensive”, might just be part of the feeling that turns people off about gays and lesbians and things like their right to adopt children.

Life is not fair and often the innocent get caught up in the same net as the guilty.  What is the meaning of this sign,  I do not get it; its intention eludes me.  It is exactly this type of behavior that makes some heterosexuals and all anti gay people feel uneasy and take all gays even if wrongfully so, for a bunch of irresponsible, grownups, inflicted with the Peter Pan Syndrome,  (Children who refuse to grow up); more concerned with their sexual organs and choice of sexual preference than with anything else.  Why would I want to put my life on the line, or job on the line for that matter for a bunch of exhibitionist that do not respect the law, their fellow citizens and even the fact that little children could be viewing their nakedness in the crowd?

1176293_10151837518045148_1259915886_nThis sign I did understand and wondered why it was such a big a deal as to how a person decides to utilize their privacy when it comes to their sexual preference.  Funny thing about my sexual preference I neither feel the need to wear it on my sleeve for all to see, nor do I feel the need to make sure it is hidden from view, but I think that either way it is my choice and why I choose to do so my personal business.  I think a person’s sexual preference is a private matter to be shared with whom they see fit,  as are the details of what happens in their bedroom. I also feel that no matter the reason a cause such as gay pride does not have the right to imply that coming out of the closet, or not sharing your sexual preferences with everyone in the office, somehow makes one a traitor to all those who are in the gay rights movement.  So I guess you could say that I do not like this sign either, or what it implies.  Right now I have no reason to go to the gay pride parade, even though I do believe that gays and lesbians should be treated equally by law all over the world, because I do not wish to be misunderstood as  supporting any of the garbage.

Just what are our politicians supporting?

Just what are our politicians supporting?

Just what are Pauline Marois, Justin Trudeau, Tom Mulcair and Bob Rae just to name a few politicians and celebrities that came out to gay pride parades all over the country, saying that they are in support of?   I do not think that they are in support of public nudity especially where children are present? The fact that this type of behavior keeps occurring  year after year, they would have to wonder if giving  people who engage in this type of public display and behavior, or condone it  should be given children to adopt? I am just saying it might be a problem for them when the cameras stop rolling. Is it these foolish displays at parades such as these that politically hurt the gay and lesbian fight for equality under the law? Why else with what would seem to be all party support in the house of Commons  for equal rights for gays and lesbians and on all other levels of government in Canada (Judging by the political names in the crowds) why there is little or nothing being done to advance the cause of total equality for gays and lesbians under the Canadian legal system?  If this is not so, then what is the hold up for politicians when it comes to putting into law what they march for in the streets?  Is there really a political will to do something for gay and lesbians in this country, or is this just another photo grabbing opportunity for vote hungry politicians, or perhaps they are just part of the show.

What is the message being sent and received in this picture?

What is the message being sent and received in this picture?

I happen to think that gays and lesbians should be treated equally under the law and should never stop fighting for it, but I think that it is also time for them all to act like law-abiding, other people respecting adults.  I am a heterosexual male, who is not homophobic and might come out to the parade with my children and grandchildren in support of fixing the serious problems in the law that gays and lesbians have to deal with in every day Canadian society and all over the world, but I quite frankly do not want my grandchildren seeing the outrageous spectacles that have become synonymous with the gay pride parade. I think also if gays and lesbians want their right to adopt children and all other things that they think that they are entitled to than they should act in a respectful manner when in public and show their responsibility where children are present.  How am I or any one else to know that one of these guys with their asses sticking out marching down the center of the street are not one of the people trying to adopt children and would we allow a child to be adopted by a  heterosexual who behaved in this manner?

I ask again in closing this question and make this statement: Does the picture above represent what gay pride is all about, or what gays and lesbians have been fighting for along with their heterosexual supporters for  so hard and for so long?   If it is not then why do the organisers of this parade allow these people to behave in this manner during what is called a gay pride parade an if the parade belongs to these exhibitionists then why do those who find this type of behavior publicly say so and have their own parade? This type of behavior certainly raises and eyebrow and grabs a headline or two, but I think it also makes a mockery and a joke out of the freedom of speech and expression argument and does not further any of more serious causes like the right to adopt children for gays around the world even a little bit.  I just think that it is a shame that the entire gay and lesbian movement’s chance to promote their fight  for equality under the law has to be sabotaged every year all over the world, because a  few exhibitionist can’t keep their clothes on for a good cause.