Did The Conservative Party of Canada Make a Bad Choice Making Andrew Scheer Their Leader?

When Andrew Scheer edged out perceived front-runner Maxime Bernier, it was clear to me that nothing of significance would change in how the Tories did business. Electing Andrew Scheer to lead the Conservative Party was a very bad choice.

Andrew Scheer is on the record as saying that his party lost the 2015 federal election because Canadians did not like Stephen Harper’s methods, rather than disliking the actual policies and changes to Canadian law they made. In other words, Andrew Scheer won the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, by saying that the Conservative party need not change their ways, just work on a better way to deliver the same, old message.

Andrew Scheer did not unite his party he split it almost in half. 49.05% of the party felt it was crucial that Canadians felt that they had learned from their mistakes and were going to do things differently, if they got the chance to govern again. (This 40,05% did not vote for Andrew Scheer)

Andrew Scheer was able to convince the extreme right of his party’s base that they had nothing to worry about. He convinced that 50.95% of the Conservative membership that although he was merely offering a softer approach and sell of the Harper vision of Conservatism, when it came to, what they consider core values of their party, such as First Nations rights, Anti-Muslim ideology and environmental issues, he stood with them, and nothing would change.

Unfortunately for the Conservative Party of Canada, under the leadership of Andrew Sheer, Canadians who voted against the Conservatives, will still be voting against them in the next federal election, because:

  • nothing will change of any substance in the Conservative Party of Canada’s policy, or vision, except the delivery;
  • at the end of the day this party will be the same Islamophobic, racist, pro one percent, anti-poor people, anti- environment, and anti-immigration party that it was under Stephen Harper’s reign;
  • the Conservative Party remains the same ideologically driven party that it was under the leadership of Stephen Harper, but will try to appear more tolerant of those they believe are not real Canadians;
  • all that they will see from Andrew Scheer and his party will be a lot of mud-slinging, instead of  them giving concrete examples of how they would govern more effectively for the betterment of all Canadians.

Canadians are still being told by this party that:

  • their opinion means nothing;
  • they do not understand how government works;
  • that a Canadian citizen’s right to have a say in how they are governed, begins and ends on election day, with their vote;
  • there are 2 kinds of Canadians. Real Canadians: Those who share European heritage, language, religion, values and ethnicity. Other Canadians: Those who do not share all of the afore-mentioned requirements necessary to be considered, ‘Real Canadians’.

Since winning the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, Andrew Sheer, has:

  • done little except, spew rhetoric and visceral and promote divisive, racist policies, with a smile instead of a frown;
  • hinted about cracking down on freedom of expression, religion, and rights guaranteed all Canadians under the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
  • engaged in personal attacks on Justin Trudeau, instead of promoting and declaring his party’s position and policies on how to improve the lot of all Canadians;
  • has lost 2 Conservative seats in by-elections to Justin Trudeau and taken nothing away from the Liberals. (British Columbia riding of South Surrey-White Rock and a long-time Conservative seat in Quebec’s nationalist heartland.) This proves that the Conservative Party of Canada’s base shrinking instead of growing under the leadership of Andrew Sheer.
  • stated that if he is elected Prime Minister of Canada he would follow Donald Trumps lead and move Canada’s Israeli embassy to Jerusalem. This move would once again put Canada at odds with the United Nations security council, international law and the Palestinians. I assume that this is a political move to try and secure the Jewish vote.

Since winning the last federal Justin Trudeau has:

  • officially acknowledged and apologised for the wrongs of past Canadian governments when it comes to First Nations, LGBTQ communities for example. Creating a way forward for a better relationship between the government of Canada and these communities. Guaranteeing in not only words, but enshrining in law, equality, justice and protection guaranteed all Canadians under the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
  • Go personally to other countries and try to drum up trade deals, to lessen our dependence on trade with the USA, whose administration is pushing a protectionist, anti-trade, make and buy American 1st agenda; (Signing of the Canada/European Trade Agreement and the Trans Pacific Partnership.
  • Got out of the Ottawa bubble and personally engaged the people in their towns and cities. Answered their questions and listened to their criticisms, as well as what they need, fear and desire for the future;
  • ignored the temptation to engage in retaliatory personal attacks on Andrew Sheer and talked about his governments accomplishments and what his plans are to better the lives of all Canadians;
  • added former Tories to his base in British Columbia and Quebec and losing nothing to the Tories in any by-elections since the 2015 federal election.

The Conservative Party of Canada does not appear to have a person to run for the leadership of their party who is genuinely likable, people friendly, or charismatic. I say this because, in Andrew Sheer they have once again elected a leader they feel they have to create a warmer, approachable image for.

The Conservative Party of Canada tried to give the impression that Stephen Harper was an approachable, warm, caring person. Harper was made to serve at BBQ’s, scheduled to do more televised interviews and played the piano for Canadians, but at the end of the day, Harper, could only look like the cold, calculating person he was.

The federal election of 2015 proved if nothing else, that most Canadians wanted a change from the way Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada had governed them.  Canadians were so, fed up with Harper’s, divisive, negative, dictatorship style of governance that a, “Vote for Anyone but Stephen Harper, campaign was adopted by enough Canadians. This campaign not only denied Stephen Harper the election win, but ended his political career, and swept Justin Trudeau into office with a majority government.  I do not think that Andrew Scheer is going to fool any Canadians outside of his base supporters and party members with his smile, anymore than Stephen Harper did serving burgers.

Andrew Scheer will have a hard way to go trying to keep his party together. If nothing else the leadership race showed that there are divisions in the party such on how to deal with fundamental issues such as, immigration, abortion, gay rights, and back bencher inclusion that could rip the party apart from its base to its leadership.

If the purpose of choosing a new leader was to convince Canadians that:

  • this was a fresh thinking political party, they have failed;
  • they now had a leader that could defeat Justin Trudeau in 2019, then they have failed;
  • they are still the same old arrogant, out of touch with Canadians party that cost them the last election, then they have succeeded.

In closing I would just like to remind Canadians that Andrew Scheer:

  • is a social conservative extremist, who owes his victory to social conservatives, who want to re-open divisive debates about same-sex marriage and abortion;
  • has promised to cut off funding to Universities that allow student protest to shut down events with pro-Israeli guest speakers, or meetings with those who oppose abortion;
  • has voted against every single civil rights advancement, since becoming a member of parliament in 2004;
  • believes that only white people of European heritage, who share the Christian faith, can speak either French or English and were born in Canada, can be considered, “Real Canadians.” Other’s can become Canadian citizens, but they must learn to fit in, or be removed from Canada, because what it means to be a real Canadian must be protected and preserved at all costs.








Posted in Canadian Fedral Elections, Canadian News Shows, Canandian Politicians, Government, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , ,

Canada A Mere Lamb To the American Wolf

I do not understand Canadian politicians, business leaders, political pundits and news reporters, who not only believe that Canada and Canadians are nothing without the United States of America but spend most of their time everyday actively trying to convince other Canadians to believe and adopt the anti-Canadian sentiments that spews from their mouths.

I will offer as an example the reaction to our Prime Minister’s signing of the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) abroad while NAFTA (The North American Trade Agreement) talks were going on in Montreal.  Even though the USA has taken the protectionist stance when it comes to trade, especially multi-lateral trade, the condemnation of Justin Trudeau’s signing of the TPP was swift.


  • the USA has unfairly applied tariffs on Canadian soft wood, and refused to comply with the decisions of the WTA in reference to the softwood lumber dispute after exhausting all  of their appeals;
  • that the USA’s commerce department levied an almost 200% tax on Bombardier’s Series Jet claiming that it agreed that Bombardier had somehow hurt Boeing chance to compete in the market, ignoring the fact that Boeing never made a bid, because it does not make that type of jet;
  • Donald Trump has threatened to pull the USA out of NAFTA, because he thinks that it is unfair to Americans; 
  • Canada needs to diversify when it comes to trade, so that the Canadian economy is less reliant on the whims of American presidents every 4 to 8 years.

Despite all the afore-mentioned and so much more, it was clear how terrified union and business leaders, political pundits and politicians were after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tried to find Canada some options to American protectionism.  The head of unions took the side of the USA decrying that by signing the TPP Canada had shot Canada in the foot, referring to what the negotiators were trying to accomplish with NAFTA.

Short of accepting any deal the Americans offer, I do not see any alternative for Canada when faced with all-encompassing protectionist actions from the Americans, then to seek to trade elsewhere, and that means entering trade deals with other nations.

Are Canadian children to be taught that they must:

  • Accept that they are less than Americans?
  • Submit to the bullying of the USA?
  • Accept the American government’s blatant disrespect for our domestic laws?
  • Turn a blind eye to American disregard for international law?
  • Put aside Canadian sovereignty when it comes to the whims of an American president?

This seems to be where we are headed. We have foolishly allowed our armed forces to fall to a level where we cannot defend our own sovereignty. Canada’s inability to defend its sovereignty with military force if need be against the USA tells me that we are sovereign if the USA permits us to be.  I do not mean we need weapons of mass destruction, because the USA could not use them against us without hurting themselves, and vice versa. Not that I do not think they would hesitate to use them against us if they could manage to do so, safely.

What I do mean is that Canada needs to build up our conventional forces. (army, navy and air force), so that Canada can defend itself from foreign attack. An attack from one of the biggest threats to Canada and life on this planet…the United States of America.

Until Canada can defend itself militarily we will always be subject to the whims of our neighbor to the south.  The USA is a nation that:

  • increasingly puts itself above international law;
  • believes that war is preferable to diplomacy;
  • sees the civilian death that it is complicit in causing, as collateral damage;
  • sees Canada’s natural resources as part of their own to squander.
  • views Canada as a sovereign country with its own government, but one that is not only subject to the laws and whims of their government,  and needs of their country. All this the USA expects without Canada having the benefit of representation in American politics, as though Canada was one of its insular areas.

Canada as a country has created anti-bullying laws to protect Canadians from each other but cannot figure out how to protect itself from the bullying of the Americans. Where has the leadership in Canada gone.  There has not been a leader willing to stand up to the Americans, since Prime Minister, Jean Chretien. Jean Chretien, was not perfect, but he was not afraid to stand up for Canadians and demand respect and acknowledgement of Canadian sovereignty and self-determination.

Canadians deserve better from those whose job it is to protect this nation’s people, resources, values, and quality of life, then a bunch of politicians shouting, “USA, USA”.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where money for those at the top of the Canadian food chain, means more than Canada’s pride and self-determination, and that puts Canadian sovereignty up for sale to the highest bidder. The USA has positioned itself perfectly to have the winning bid.

If Canada is not careful it could become the next insular area of the USA, like Porto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam. Canada could become a territory of the USA, subject to its laws, declarations of war and the whims of its president and Congress, while not being allowed to choose electors in U.S. presidential elections or elect voting members of the U.S. Congress.

My mother used to always tell me when I came home whining about being picked on, or saying that it wasn’t my fault, because it was my friend’s idea, that went something like this, “Better to live one day as a wolf, then the rest of your life as a lamb.” I think that this is the advice I would like to pass on to Canada’s politicians, business leaders, union heads and fellow ordinary citizens.

Posted in Canada, Canada USA relations, Canadian News Shows, Canandian Politicians, Government, Uncategorized, United States of America | Tagged , , , ,

Fake News Is My Choice For Biggest Story Of The Year

The biggest story of the year for me must be that Donald Trump has got it right about the news being fake. What is being referred to as honest, straight forward, unbiased, objective and unaltered news is not true.  What the public reads in newspapers, listen to on the radio and watches on television, or interacts with on their computer, for the most part is staged, choreographed, reported out of context, and broken down into minute sound bites, to create the story and the narrative that the news agency, or paper wants you to believe.

News is big business. When you factor in, that on top of all the other costs of getting the news to an audience, some news show anchors are getting multi million dollar salaries, just to read out the news and ask prepared questions to their guest or panels, it is no surprise that news agencies worry more about market share and making money, then about providing the audience with the accurate facts.

It is impossible to be the first out of the box with stories of interest now that information travels in seconds, so news agencies rely on sensationalism to attract audiences, rather than the big scoop.

News papers, television news shows, and radio news refer to themselves, or are being referred to by others, as right-wing, left-wing, or centrist? How is this possible when there is only one set of facts that can be true, and what you believe in does not alter what is truth? News agencies call out Donald Trump and his staff for using alternate facts, but they are guilty of the same thing.

Good news reporting/journalism is supposed to provide viewers, listeners and readers with only the facts of a story which allows their audience to make informed decisions about what is going on in the world and what is important to them.

It is not the job of those reporting the news to:

  • promote their opinion on a story to sway the opinion of their audiences;
  • advance the agenda of corporations, and political machines that buy ads onto their audience;
  • create the news instead of reporting it;
  • become the judge jury and executioner of those being accused of something;
  • pretend that they are politicians, activists, judges, or members of a jury.
  • advance theories on what happened, or what a person was thinking, but to report what they know to be factually true

The job of those in the news business from the top to of the company, to those who work in it is simply to deliver the facts of a story honestly without taking a side, so that the audience can make well-informed decision based on the facts.

Reporting of the news has gotten to a point where news agencies have become political machines and activists, using their ability to reach millions of people to:

  • make, or break careers;
  • ruin reputations;
  • elect politicians and topple governments, by getting personally involved in the news, instead of just reporting it as it happens in its entirety.

News agencies have done, an end run around good journalism by making shows like Power and Politics and Power Play. These shows allow for news agencies to:

  • steer the conversation by having hosts pose questions designed to get a certain response from so-called political pendants;
  • dodge responsibility for the accuracy of what is being said, by making the disclaimer, that the views being aired are not necessarily theirs;

When those delivering the news alter the facts by omitting, stretching and in some cases intentionally lying to make the story more interesting, or persuasive, they do their audience a great disservice.

Interviews used to be done in an open honest way that allowed for a person to be questioned and the response to the question seen it its entirety. Now we hear the question and only get to hear the part of the answer that supports the agenda of the host, or news agency.  Unless it is a special interview, I cannot remember when I have last heard or seen an interview in its entirety. There is a combative approach to interviews these days that should not be there, if delivering the news is supposed to be neutral.  Trying to trick the person being interviewed is not good reporting in my book.

I personally do not care what the news show hosts thinks about the stories they are supposed to be covering impersonally and honestly. What I care about are the facts being reliable and credible, so that I can make my own decisions based on reliable facts.

There is no room in the news business for alternative facts, spinning the story, and the taking of sides.  When this happens the people of the world like Donald Trump win, because they can truthfully say that most of what comes out of main stream news is fake news.

In Canada job creation is up, the economy is booming, Justin Trudeau has kept his promise to First Nations and apologised not only to them but to the LGBT community for the suffering and mistreatment they have had to endure in the past, and yet every day I turn on the television news anchors and reporters are trying to diminish his record.

The outgoing ethics commissioners calling Justin Trudeau’s visit to the Aga Khan’s private island unethical was important and very telling about how news is covered? The ethics commissioner, based her decision that the trip was unethical solely on her belief, that the Aga Khan was not what she would consider a friend of Justin Trudeau.

The ethics Commissioner made the taking of  a vacation to the private island of the Aga Khan by Justin Trudeau a breach of ethics, because she did not think that the Aga Khan was as good enough friend of Justin Trudeau’s, in spite of the fact that the Aga Khan was a close enough friend of the family to be a pall bearer for Justin Trudeau’s father’s funeral. When I heard a host on a news program say that since the Prime Minister was found guilty of unethical behaviour based on the ethics commissioner’s views on what constitutes a friend, that the truth of the matter was just water under the bridge now…I knew that she was trying to spin the story for maximum effect rather than getting at the truth. In my opinion she was guilty of sensationalism and being a participant in promoting a fake narrative, or participating and partaking in the delivery of fake news.

I have only found myself able to agree with Donald Trump on one thing, and that is that most of the news put out for their viewing and listening audiences is indeed fake, incomplete and delivered in a way that is biased, meant to curry favor with one side instead of just a deliverance of all the facts.

With so much going on in the world today everyone in the world relies on news delivers to be honest, open and transparent and stick to the basic rules of good journalism. Unfortunately, this has not been the case for a long time now and fake news has become the normal and is one reason that a mentally deranged person now is in control of the deadliest, most powerful nation in the world.

Posted in abuse of power, Fake News, News, Uncategorized | Tagged ,

Does ‘Me Too’, Mean Justice For All, Just For Us, Or Just Revenge?

When a person’s right to due process of law:

  • is not  made accessible to them;
  • is sidestepped for political gain, corporate profit, or expediency: can it be said that justice has been served?

When a person is punished without having received the benefit of due process of law:

  • to placate the angry masses;
  • to make politicians appear to be doing something;
  • to make politicians and corporate heads appear sensitive to a certain group of individuals: can it be said that justice has been served?

There can be no equality, or fairness of justice if there is no due process of law.  Sadly, this is the situation that all men find themselves in, as politicians, women’s activists and angry women from all walks of life struggle with how best to put an end to the sexual harassment and sexual assault women have had to endure, at the hands of some men, in the workplace.

Anyone accused of sexual harassment, sexual assault, physical abuse, and or mental abuse of another human being, should always be:

  • arrested;
  • charged;
  • tried in a court of law;
  • if convicted in a court of law, punished to fullest extent of the law.

This is due process.

Unfortunately, what is going on in today’s world, are men being:

  • accused of crimes by women who claim they have been abused in their past and by  women coming forward stating that their only intention in doing so, is to show their support for others.
  • charged by police based on the information given by their accusers;
  • tried in the news media, and the court of public opinion;
  • pronounced guilty, sentenced, and punished, on the word of the accusing women alone.

For these men the only due process of law that they are going to get will be when they are charged by police based on the information given by their accusers.

Interestingly, the ‘#Me Too’ movement and the women who claim to have been violated, seem unwilling to take on the institutions, businesses, owners, managers, that have supported their abusers. The, ‘#Me Too’ movement and its supporters, seem content to allow the people and companies that:

  • hired these men;
  • allowed them to continue working even after they knew of their wrong doing;
  • even went as far as made pay offs to victim to keep them quiet, to get a free pass, when it comes criminal, ethical and moral responsibility.

If nothing else these companies and their upper management are guilty of looking the other way while the crimes were being committed and often duplicitous. Could it be that the reason that only the men are under attack, is that the women are afraid that if they attack the institutions and businesses that they could cause harm to their careers?

Is what we are seeing really a push for change for all women, or is this a push for a long anticipated and up until now denied revenge by women in the entertainment industry? How will any of this benefit the secretary, waitress and all the ordinary women who do not have star status? I do not think at the end of the day that it will have any positive impact.

Honest, respecting men, in positions of authority are now vulnerable to disgruntled female employees. A disgruntled female employee in the present climate, need only suggest that there was inappropriate behaviour by their male boss, to put them in trouble and get revenge for justifiable critic, or dismissal.

When the dust begins to settle, and the news media loses its interest in this cause, as it does with every cause after 2 weeks, when no new fresh accusations are brought against those deemed to be news worthy, life is going to get tougher on the average women looking for work.

The work place is still dominated by males, especially in upper management.  Men in high positions could just quietly stop hiring women and avoid the problem all together. The excuse for not hiring women in the first place, were the consequences of mixing men and women in the work place. Unfortunately, for many employers this will be seen as proof, that having men and women sharing the same work space  poses too much of a risk, to workplace productivity, safety, and moral.

There can be no doubt that the powers that be, will do what they think is best for their financial bottom line. I will suggest that they will not remove most of their top male management and start over with women at the top. They will simply remove the minority of women workers from the work place to remove all possibility of male, female interaction in the work place.

I understand and believe in the need to make women feel they can feel safe and secure coming forward with complaints of sexual harassment and sexual assault.  I have two daughters and two granddaughters.

I do not believe that justice is served, when a man accused of sexual misconduct, does not have access to due process of law, or that right is sidestepped for the sake of expediency, or the profit sheet?

What we have now it seems, are some men who admit that they indeed were guilty of what they have been accused of, and have been rightfully fired from their positions…I have no problem with that and those who deny the charges against them.

I have a problem with:

  • how it is a crime in the publics eye to even question a women’s version of accounts, raising women to a level of saint hood; above lying for revenge, or other reasons;
  • men who have denied the allegations of sexual harassment, and sexual assault having their careers, personal lives and reputations ruined, before they are proved guilty in a court of law.
  • Companies firing people to minimize public relations fallout, rather than on actual proved guilt;
  • news agencies reporting allegations as though they were proved facts, and when the man is found not to be guilty of anything, acting like a retraction  gives him back all that he has lost;
  • innocent men falsely accused, tried, sentenced and punished in the court of public opinion, considered acceptable collateral damage.

Movements like the online movement using the hashtag, ‘#Me Too’ may encourage silenced women to come forward with their stories, but they have a down side.  They give a forum and a licence to women who are looking to pile on for revenge.  Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

I find it disturbing that:

  • the minute anyone attempts to question the motivation of women only coming forward after the group using the hash tag, ‘#Me Too’ , was created by someone else, (some over 40 years after the alleged crime took place), that they are shamed and automatically considered as being part of the problem.
  • no one wants to consider that some women’s motivation could be satisfying a need to feel a part of something, to connect and tat they have created a plausible story, using a false narrative to become part of a spotlighted group that requires no proof before posting a women’s story of alleged sexual abuse.

Of course all of the women’s stories could be true, with all of the men guilty of what they are being accused of.  That is why we have due process of law. No one is guilty simply because they have been accused of something.  Only a court of law should be determining who is telling the truth, between accuser and the accused.  It is only through the courts that both parties can hope to be heard without prejudice, by an impartial judge and in some cases jury.  This ensures that the case will be heard on its merits and judged by the evidence.  If people are not content with the way the law is being interrupted by judges, then they must fight to have the politicians who represent them, change the law.

I have always maintained that it is not enough to just punish people, to quiet the crowd, or appease those that feel they are victims. I truly believe that laws need to be enacted to protect people, to make lasting, meaningful changes.  I am heartened that sexual offenders who preyed on the stars and would be stars are being prosecuted and they can feel better and safer about coming out and outing their abusers. However, for the average woman these actions will get them nothing. What the average woman needs before she will see change, or feel safe to out her abuser, is a change in law and the prosecution of these crimes done within the confines of the law, affording and making assessable, due process of law, to everyone.

Posted in abuse of power, abuse of women, harrasment, Sexual assault, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , ,

Federal Government Allowing Quebec To Get Away With Islamophobic Laws

As a former French colony, Quebec has made it clear that it intends to follow in the footsteps of its colonial racist forefathers. With the passage of Bill 62, Quebec politicians have proven just how far they will go to keep Muslim women and girls from wearing a veil.  The practice of forcing Muslim females to reveal themselves is nothing new to the French. This practice is a throw back to French colonialism. Bigoted politicians such as Premier Philippe Couillard and Quebec Justice Minister Stephanie Vallee claim that this bill is about “religious neutrality”, but access to public services or work in government jobs are not denied to:

  • Jews  wearing a Yarmulke;
  • Christians wearing crosses;
  • Sikhs wearing religious head wear.

Politicians and people like Premier Philippe Couillard and Quebec Justice Minister Stephanie Vallee  hold on to the old racist colonial belief that forcing Muslim females to remove their veils and reveal themselves makes the Muslim female more like Western females…making them less Barbaric…more civilized looking: more like them.

Politicians and people like Premier Philippe Couillard and Quebec Justice Minister Stephanie Vallee are of the belief that veils worn by Muslim females  threaten Quebec’s reputation as a modern, civilized society.

Bill 62 does not represent “religious neutrality.” Bill 62 is an attempt to use secularism as a means for prejudiced ends.

Bigotry, white supremacy and ethnocide are being pushed from the highest level of government in Quebec.  No type of intolerance, or racism should be seen, or tolerated in a country that declares itself to be a  functioning Liberal Democracy. Yet Canada’s federal government takes no action when the Liberal government of Quebec passes a law that clearly violates the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Bill 62, no matter the reason for its passing into law by the Quebec Liberal Party is a perfect example of a provincial government chipping away at the guaranteed rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens. The federal government’s continued refusal to protect, or even stand up for the rights of its own marginalised oppressed citizens, while sending troops, equipment , and providing financial aid to support the marginalized citizens of foreign nations hypocritical.

Prime Minister Trudeau through his unwillingness to stand up for the rights of all Canadians regardless of what province they live in is:

  • breaking of the campaign promise that he made to ensure that all Canadians no matter race, ethnicity, religious choice, sexual preference, or gender, would be viewed and treated equally under the laws of Canada and within Canada’s borders, because we were all Canadians;
  • an admission that the province of Quebec is not only a “distinct society”, but is in reality a separate sovereign nation and as such is under no obligation to abide by the laws of Canada;
  • that being willing to sacrifice the linguistic, religious, cultural, and sexual rights of minorities, is the price the federal government is willing to pay to keep Canada a unified nation.

It is like the federal government is saying to Canadians:

  • When in Quebec, the Quebec Charter dictates the rights and freedoms that you are entitled to;
  • When in Quebec the laws of Quebec only the laws of Quebec matter.
  • When in Quebec all rights guaranteed you under the Canadian Constitution, or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are subject to Quebec government approval.
  • When within the borders of Quebec, your Canadian rights and freedoms are suspended, your Canadian citizenship is suspended and you are considered a citizen of Quebec and subject solely to their laws.

The government of Quebec even despite protests from its citizenry has decided to impose its anti Muslim bill. I say anti Muslim bill because it will for the most part target and deny Muslim veil wearing women and girls the use of public services offered within its borders to freely and without conditions to its other citizenry.

Premiere, Philippe Couillard and Justice Minister Stephanie Vallee have sworn that they will stand by the law and use the “Not Withstanding Clause” if necessary to ignore court decisions that go against them. In other words in Quebec one has the right to practice their religion freely as long as you are not a scarf wearing Muslim woman, or girl.

The Canadian federal government’s position is that it is not within their jurisdiction to fight for the rights guaranteed all Canadians in Canada found in the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms.  Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau said, “Bill 62 is a Quebec internal problem, but the federal government will keep an eye on things.”   Muslim women and girls are being forced to decide between following the tenets of their religion, or having access to services provide by the province such as, riding the bus, going to school, the hospital, or trying to use social services such as welfare and unemployment insurance, and the Prime Minister responsible for the well-being of all Canadians, says he will not fight for their guaranteed fundamental rights.

Historically facts:

  • Islamophobia, the racial and religious prejudice directed toward the Muslim “Other,” has had deep roots in French colonialism for centuries.
  • Colonial powers, particularly the French under la mission civilisatrice, viewed women’s bodies as symbols of modernity.
  • Colonizers believed that by symbolically ripping the veils off women’s bodies, thereby making them visibly Western, they could strip away the “backward” culture of the colonized.
  • For Western imperialist powers, the status of women was and still is associated with whether or not women chose to adopt Western dress.
  • In colonial Algeria, the French military often carried out mass unveiling ceremonies. These ceremonies had symbolic value as they demonstrated the subjugation of women, as well as the overall French subjugation of Algeria.
  • The majority-Muslim Republic of Turkey discouraged veiling.  They saw veiled women as an impediment to Turkey being recognized and accepted as a civilized nation.
  • American politicians, celebrities and media justified American actions in Afghanistan by citing the urgent need to “liberate” Afghan women from the burqa, a traditional veil that became a symbol of Otherness.

Double standards and hypocrisy of Bill 62’s “religious neutrality.”

  • In Quebec,  someone will be able to wear sunglasses and a scarf on a metro, but a woman won’t be able to express her religious freedoms by donning a veil.
  • In Quebec a crucifix hangs in the National Assembly, considered by the creators of Bill 62 to be an “intrinsic part of Quebec history.”
  • Catholic Quebecers religious traditions are protected by the province, while Muslim Women and girls will be forced to recognize that the terms of their citizenship are dependent on the abandonment of their prior cultural and religious practices.

Bill 62 is a symbol of French colonialism that Quebec politicians are still clinging to. In the name of religious neutrality, Quebec is appropriating women’s bodies to reinforce a right-wing ideology, hoping to attract the Islamophobic Quebecers to vote for them.

The Quebec government is able to get away with creating laws like Bill 62, because of Canada’s refusal to recognize:

  • its own colonial failures.
  • the colonial failures of other global powers around the world.

Canada needs to:

  • Do a lot better job of putting aside its colonial practices as a nation, before continuing to brag to the rest of the world about how great and welcoming a place it is for all.
  •  be honest and state that Canada, is only welcoming to people of  the Christian faith, White, English, French, and are of European decent, that make up the majority of it citizenry.
  • be fair and make all other nationalities know that they too are welcome to immigrate to Canada, as long as they leave their religion and cultural practices behind.

Democratic governance means very little without what are considered the rights and freedoms of  a Liberal Democracy.

A liberal democracy is supposed to include elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government. Canada professes to be Liberal Democracy. Unfortunately Canada has been chipping away at the spirit and the principles mentioned above at the federal, provincial and civic levels of governance for so long, that all that is left to our democracy is the right for every eligible Canadian to vote for the liar that appeals their personal values.

What good is a constitution that enshrines the rights of its citizens,  such as:

  • freedom of speech and expression;
  • the right to protest and strike;
  • the right to practice one’s religion and be treated equally under the law, can be altered, watered down and even taken away by politicians’ pandering to political voting blocs?

Core values and the spirit of democracy are what should set Canada’s governance apart from other forms of government.

Can Canada be considered a function “Liberal “Democracy”, when the provinces and territories ability ignore court rulings that find them in violation of the Canadian Constitution, or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, using the “Not Withstanding Clause”,  is the only glue holding the country together politically?

Quebec gets away with racist activity, that is a throw back to the times of colonialism, because the federal government of Canada, allows it.

Posted in abuse of power, abuse of women, Canada, Canandian Politicians, ethnoside, Government, Prejudice, Quebec, Racism, Religious Freedom, stereotyping, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , ,

What Will It Take?

What will it take for the people of the United States of America and their allies to understand that the words terrorist and terrorism are words used by their politicians to install fear in their own populations. A fear that will allow peaceful ordinary citizens to fear a group of people or a religious belief enough, that they will stand by and look the other way, or support crimes against humanity and mass murder in the name of survival, or the preservation of their way of life.

Hitler used the same tactics against the Jews of Europe.  The world vowed never again, but the Muslims of the world now face the same type of genocide.  The concentration camps/death camps are now called refugee camps. Instead of a quick death by firing squad, or in a gas chamber however the people are left to die generation after generation, from malnutrition, disease and broken hearts. The average waiting time in these death camps just to have your case for immigration to a western country heard by officials, is ten years.  Some families have been waiting for over forty years, watching family and love ones die. What will it take for the people of the USA and its allies to understand that they are supporting genocide? 

War is big business.  The USA and its allies have come to rely on the profits of war to keep their economies and people working. Politicians of the Western Alliance much like Hitler have convinced their people that they must do what they do to keep their citizens and the rest of the world safe. Unfortunately, the citizens of the USA and their allies do not get, or do not care that what is happening against those of the Islamic faith has nothing to do with safety, or their safety, but is being done for the love of money and power.

If the definition of a terrorist is:

  •   a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims;
  •   a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

If these definitions are true, then how can the USA and its allies not be considered terrorists committing acts of terrorism?

What will it take and how many of their citizens must die, before the USA and its allies get it…nuclear missiles, nuclear defense systems, navies, air forces and armies armed with the most modern and deadly weapons will not keep their people safe from the relatives, friends and leaders of those they kill in sovereign Islamic states? Those forced into mass migration and left in refugee/death camps to die have families who are citizens of the USA and in the USA’s Western Alliance, and they are not happy with the treatment of their loved ones.  There is no amount of pro patriotic rhetoric that will convince a family member that it is okay for the government to be a part of the mass murder of their loved one’s in other countries.

Everyone asks where do home-grown terrorists come from? Why do they seek to bite the hand that feeds them? Non-Muslim American citizens and their allies should ask themselves what would they would do if it was their family and loved ones who were the recipients of such hatred, persecution, oppression and mass murder? What would they do, if they were met with accusations of non-patriotism, mistrust and threats of jail, or deportation, when they protested what was happening to their loved ones?  What would they do if going to fight for their loved ones was deem illegal?

Ideology cannot be killed with political rhetoric of your own, guns, bombs, starvation, or deprivation. The only weapon that will work against ideology is proving that it has no basis in fact.

Tougher immigration laws that target certain nations, or people based on race or religion, only serve to:

  • help to alienate already marginalized visual and religious minorities;
  • radicalize Muslim or other visual and religious minorities through unfair isolation and the promote the idea that there is something inherently and systemically evil with those the tougher immigration laws unfairly target;
  • make it easier for agents of radicalization to radicalize visual and religious minority citizens of the USA and their allies.

How many innocent people must die on the street by car attack, and other random acts of violence by those authorities call home-grown terrorists before the Americans and their allies understand that those who live by the sword will die by the sword? When people are willing to kill themselves to stop you from hurting them, no amount of superior weaponry, or political rhetoric will keep them from avenging their dead and dying.

Up to now the politicians, law enforcement, news media and ordinary people of the United States and its allies seem content to delude themselves that they and those acting in their behalf are somehow making the world a safer and better place.  All I can see from the news is that the USA and its allies have destabilized the world and brought the wars that they got involved in or started in foreign lands back to their home soil.

I do not believe that the citizens of the USA and their allies feel safe in their beds, walking in the street, or anything else they used to take for granted…do you?  If the citizens of the USA and their allies do not feel safe going about their daily lives in their own countries… what a price they and the world have been made to pay, so that the top one percent of the world’s population can make more money in order to buy more influence and power.

Think about this: According to one estimate, from 1956 to 2016, a total of forty-three genocides have taken place which caused the death of about 50 million people, while an additional 50 million were resettled or displaced by such conflicts.


On December 9, 1948 the United Nations approved the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This convention establishes “genocide” as an international crime, which signatory nations “undertake to prevent and punish.” It defines genocide as:

Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

  • Killing members of the group;
  • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  • Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  • Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
  • What role has the USA and their allies really played in the conflicts being deemed as acts of genocide?
  • Did companies in the USA and their allies make a profit from selling weapons, defense systems, or other forms of support to either side of the conflict?
  • How many more innocent people need to die before the senseless killing stops?

Posted in abuse, abuse of power, cultural genocide, ethnoside, genocide, Government, Prejudice, Racism, Terrorism, Uncategorized, United States of America | Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Children Fall Through the Cracks Because Those Responsible for Their Safety and Care Fail Them

Social work, child phycology, and other tools currently utilised to help children stop being juvenile delinquents and become healthy contributing members of society for the most part do not work, because they do not address the root causes of the pain and suffering of the children in question.  For the most part children who break the law, or resist authority are punished for their offenses first and their reasons for their acting out an after thought, if raised at all. Politicians, judges, lawyers, police, social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, teachers, etc., all are part of a vicious circle of adult authority figures that hurt children.

There has been a lot of talk about the need for change in the way the system deals with all aspects of child abuse, but for the most nothing gets changed, because most adults believe that children:

  • are their property to do with as they please;
  • are born liars and will try to lie their way out of punishment even if it means falsely accusing an authority figure of abuse;
  • have over zealous imaginations making their alleged abuse mere fantasy and not reality;
  • should be seen and not heard;
  • should be forced to obey their elders;
  • will forget and get over in time the abuse they are subjected to;
  • being protected from abuse is not worth the reputation of a politician, priest, teacher, coach, government, church, school, or even sports team.

Until those charged with ensuring the well-being of children start hearing, believing and doing more to make children safe from adults who physically, mentally and sexually abuse them, children will keep falling through the cracks.  It is hard extremely turn a kid around in an hour a week session, who has been abused since they were old enough to remember, punished repeatedly for acting out by authority figures, and feels alone and betrayed by every adult in their life.

Betrayal: Children are often too embarrassed, or too afraid to tell anyone about the mental cruelty, beatings or daily sexual assaults, so when they do come forward and no one believes them, or fails to act, they feel betrayed, go deeper into their protective shell, and become angry.

The vicious cycle of child abuse: Angry children if not turned around become angry, anti social, young adults, most likely to get into trouble with the law and be punished for it. These young adults will rightfully blame society for their problems and become angry adults. Some will become child abusers, some rapists, some drug addicts, some career criminals. The sad truth is that very few will make it to become healthy contributing members of society. Pimps, drug addicts, alcoholics, pedophiles, rapists, homeless people, etc., are not born that way. They are the bi-product of a society that does not care about their children enough to take meaningful steps to protect them from those who would prey on them.

Children are not safe in Canada, because:

  • Teachers, doctors and other such professional continue not to report suspected child abuse;
  • the reluctance of police to arrest suspected child abusers;
  • the almost impossible task of getting prosecutors to charge and aggressively seek conviction and real punishment for cases of suspected child abuse;
  • judges failing to give maximum penalties to those convicted of child abuse.
  • politicians refusing to protect children from child abuse under the law, choosing instead to write laws that see young offenders treated like adults for breaking the law.

If I had a dime for every teacher, parent, etc. told me that they either knew or suspected that children were being abused, by a co-worker, family member, or religious leader, and did nothing about it, I would be a rich man today.

A sitting Canadian Senator was suspected of inappropriate sexual relations with a minor girl and force to resign.  The problem was and still is that he had broken no Canadian law. Apparently, their image and not what did or did not happen.  Young girls will continue to be abused that do not make the front page of the news, because in most provinces girls are considered old enough to be pursued and consent to sexual activity at the age of fourteen.

A comparison: In the USA, former Penn State football coach and serial child molester – Jerry Sandusky, received a 30 to 60-year prison sentence.  In Canada, Graham James, who coached the Swift Current Broncos, has now been convicted of sexually assaulting six boys received a seven-year sentence.

Canadian Cases and sentences:

  • 1982, Clifford Olson, convicted of killing 11 children was eligible for parole.
  • 1988, Maple Leaf Gardens equipment manager Gordon Stuckless admitted to molesting 24 boys he had lured into the storied arena – and was handed a sentence of only two years less a day.
  • 2011, sixty-six-year-old Newfoundlander Cyril Keats received a two-year sentence for a string of child sexual assault cases stretching back to 1979.
  • 2017, Justice Robert Maranger sentenced the father of an elven year-old boy, (his son), to fifteen years in prison for what he called a “horrific” case involving “the worst kind of abuse.” Problem is that after time already served, the 45-year-old faces 13 years and two months in prison. But he could be paroled sooner.

Sadly: There are still those who believe that the survivors of child abuse are not qualified to advise other victims, unless they have a degree.  A young lady who had read a post about my surviving child abuse, told me about her abuse and her attempt to put it all behind her and try to live a life without the recurring nightmares. The young lady also asked if I had any advice.  When in a discussion with a friend I mentioned the conversation and that I intended to respond to the young lady, the friend said, “You are not qualified to help her.” “The girl might think that you can save her, but you can’t.” “Do not write this post.” “Best leave her to seek help from those trained to save her.”

 In Conclusion: Society seems incapable of protecting children simply because it is the right thing to do, so perhaps looking at the problem in another way, that adults can understand, is what is required? Consider the cost in terms of medical treatment, crime, financial support, legal support, and loss of life, every time a child slips through the cracks and becomes an angry adult: unwilling, or incapable, of conducting themselves as a responsible, contributing member of society. In other words, make it not about helping the child, but helping the adults in society protect what they seem to value the most! Their money!




Posted in abuse, Authority figures and Parents Who Sexually Abuse children, Child Abuse, Child Abuse, feeling rejected, feelings of hurt and hatred, Government, Juvenile Delinquency, Sexual assault, Uncategorized | Tagged , ,