Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Steven Blaney’

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.

Canadians Have The Right To Bear Arms Says Steven Blaney Minister Of Public Safety And Emergency Preparedness


How easy this government forgets!

How easy this government forgets!

 

 What a joke the Conservative Party of Canada has become with  Stephen Harper as its leader.  They have proved to be out of step with what  is a constitutional right in Canada and seem unable to grasp what is in their power to do and what is not when creating new laws, or changing old ones that will stand up when challenged in the  Supreme Court of Canada.  I think that the problem is that the Conservative Party of  Canada’s back benchers and front back benchers, secretaries to ministers and ministers all the way up to and including Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the PMO, cannot distinguish the difference between what is a constitutional right in Canada and what is a privilege in Canada.

Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Steven Blaney, proved that he is no more knowledgeable in these matters than that of the rest of his fellow ministers in regards to what country’s legal system he is governing under and what the difference is between a right and a privilege  where Canadian law is concerned.  When Steven Blaney made the statement at a press conference he called, “Canadians have the right to bear arms that comes with a responsibility” and then repeated that gibberish during an interview on Power and Politics, I think he showed not only his contempt for the Supreme court of Canada and the bureaucrats in the RCMP as he called them, but also where the Conservative Party of Canada’s priorities lie when it comes to soliciting votes and keeping our law enforcement as free from unnecessary risks to their lives as possible and the people of Canada safe from maniacs with semi-automatic and automatic firearms.

Even when Steven Blaney Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was reminded in an interview on television, by the host of Power and Politics that the Supreme Court of Canada has shot down this assertion of the right to bare arms as a Canadian right on numerous occasions over the years and consistently said that the right to own firearms is a privilege in Canada and not a right, Steven Blaney, repeatedly said that  he and his party think that it is.  The Conservative Party of Canada seems to be so desperate to secure a voting block fanatical enough to vote for it despite all of the scandals and screw ups that it is willing to put  the safety of Canadians a risk, by playing politics with gun control.  Do Canadian anglers and hunters need another gun in their arsenal so badly that it is worth risking the life of one law enforcement officer, or one citizen for? Does the Conservative Party of Canada need votes so badly that they are willing to risk the deaths of Canadian citizens to get them? I think with their latest announcement they have proved that they are willing to win even if it means the majority of Canadians safety is put at risk.

What legitimate range shooter, or hunter needs to have a Swiss Arms Classic  semi-automatic riffle in their possession to hunt deer, moose, or bear? The only purpose to practice with that weapon is to be able to when the time and situation is right to kill another human being.   One would think that after  the attempted assassination of Pauline Marois,  the murder of RCMP officers in Moncton and remembering The École Polytechnique Massacre of 1989 that Steven Blaney Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, would be trying to get these types of firearms off the street and out of the hands of all Canadians and yet this is not the case. Despite the decision of the RCMP  after a year-long study to ban the ownership of the Swiss Arms Classic Green semi-automatic rifles, Steven Blaney Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Conservative government of Canada have decided to ignore the RCMP and is  granting a two-year amnesty to owners of Swiss Arms Classic Green semi-automatic rifles.  This in my opinion is putting all law enforcement officers at a greater risk of being killed by lunatics without a criminal record who can legally purchase semi-automatic weapons of the nature shown above now. This is yet another purely political move to keep the vote of gun lobbyist.  These lobbyists have accused the Conservative Party of Canada of betraying them once they helped get them elected in the last election and have been threatening to not vote for them in the next election if they did not start giving them what they want. Does the Conservative Party of Canada also believe that along with the right to bear arms that Canadians have the right to use those guns to rid themselves of an unjust, corrupt, oppressive government that they feel no longer represents the people,  as the gun lobbyist believe in the USA believe is one of the root purposes of their right to bear arms?

With the Supreme Court saying that Canadians do not have a right to bear arms in Canada and the RCMP after doing a year-long study on the Swiss Arms Classic Green semi-automatic rifle deciding to ban the weapons ownership and use in Canada, stating they suspected the guns could be converted to automatic weapons, which are illegal in Canada, why else but for political gain would the Conservative Party of Canada choose to ignore both the RCMP and the Supreme Court of Canada?  If it is the job of the government to do what is best for all Canadians and insure that the laws it makes represents what is in the best interest of all Canadians please tell me how giving anyone who can pass a fire arms test and does not have a criminal record involving domestic violence the opportunity to arm themselves with a semi-automatic rifle that the police say is easily converted to an automatic rifle is in the best interest of the general public? Keeping in mind that children who bring guns to school and kill their bullies, have never been found guilty of a criminal offense before and neither have those disgruntled employees who walk into offices and start randomly shooting management and co-workers. All people who kill their spouses, or children with firearms have not all had criminal records in their past, or been convicted of domestic violence, so the chances of screening out all that would do harm with this weapon is as impossible a task as any other weapon.  With the long gun registry scrapped by this government police will not know if this type of weapon is in a house that they are called to enter and so thanks to this government will be placed a risk once again so that the Conservative Party of Canada can score political points with its base.

The big reason for the government taking away the  rights of Canadians guaranteed in the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  pertaining to privacy and  due legal process are that the government claims that we have been infiltrated by terrorists through our immigration system, who have now spawned what they are now calling home-grown terrorists.  Most of those who have gone off and fought for what the government calls terrorist  organisations abroad have never been found guilty of a criminal offense before, so how does Steven Blaney Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, know that he is not arming home-grown terrorist with semi-automatic weapons that are easily converted to automatic weapons that can be turned against our military personnel and our members of law enforcement?

In closing I would like to say these few words, “As far as gun owners being responsible for this new right that Steven Blaney Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, is attempting to give to them, I think that gun owners should be truly responsible for the privilege like Steven Blaney is suggesting. If Canadians are going to insist on their right to have guns then I think that they should be made to be responsible for everything that their guns are used for, whether in their hand, or in the hand of another unbeknownst to them, or without their expressed permission. Far too many illegal guns start off as legal  guns that get stolen from homes and then are used to commit crimes; some guns are found by children and used to commit crimes, settle scores, or accidentally kill a friend or sibling; my thought is that the original owner of the firearm should be held accountable for allowing his or her firearm to fall into the wrong hands and be used in a crime and all such instances be deemed neglect on the part of the original gun owner, if the firearm was not reported stolen before the commission of a crime. I would like to see the new law hold the owners of unreported stolen firearms viewed as an accessory to the crime under the law and be subject to the same penalties as the actual perpetrator of the crime.  I feel that they the original gun owner should be subject to the same jail time and penalties as the person using their weapon to commit the crime and that they should have to make restitution to the injured party, or their families.  I wonder how many people would find it within their rights and demand that they be allowed to own a firearm if they were going to be held    responsible for whatever crime that firearm was used in, if its being lost or stolen and was not reported to the police, or until they handed it over to the police before it got into the wrong hands and it that way were absolved of the responsibility for it and the consequences?”