Political Apologies Mean Little Without Concrete Action to Prevent Injustices


Until the Canadian government decides to do something in real-time to address Canada’s failure to protect, insure and uphold the rights and freedoms guaranteed all Canadians regardless of where they live in Canada, where they came from originally, what religion they choose to practice, as well as provide services to Canadians in the citizens choice, between French and English, the Prime Minister, can stand up in the House of Commons or in town halls and make all the heart filled tearful apologies he likes, and they will be seen as political gamesmanship, appreciated only by the targeted voting block it is intended to appease. A way to garner the support of a minority voting block without really doing anything for them or their children in real-time.

Quebec politicians have been emboldened by the refusal of the Canadian government to protect the rights of Canadian citizens living in the province of Quebec. The federal government has consistently offered up all of Quebec’s minority citizenry as sacrificial lambs… choosing rather not to alienate itself from French politicians and voters, who they fear would once again seek to separate from the rest of Canada, should the government of Canada intervene, in what Quebec feels is its right to do as a sovereign nation.

Quebec has decided that its laws trump the laws of Canada and has proved so in every case where language has become an issue declaring that they do not care if and action violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms…Quebec has its own Charter and those are the rights that anyone living in Quebec will have to live with.  The province of Quebec has been called one of the most racist places in to live in North America and the only advice the federal government will offer to its Canadian citizens living working and paying taxes in Quebec is, “If life is too tough in Quebec, then the English and other minority groups should consider moving to another province.”

When Canada’s leaders abandon Quebec’s Muslims, English and other visible minorities to the racist unfounded fears of Quebec’s provincial politicians and white supremest, it does little to counter Quebec’s assertions that:

  • the federal government has zero authority over what happens in Quebec;
  • Quebec is an independent nation and as such those living in Quebec are subject to its laws and Charter, no matter how racist they are;
  • That the federal government only cares about Quebec’s minority citizenry at election time.

Recently the Quebec Liberal’s passed Bill 62. This bill claimed to be needed to protect and uphold the provinces religious neutrality position, but everyone knows that it is a prime example of Quebec politicians instituting laws that target the religious freedom of Muslim women. Where was the federal government on this one? They were where they usually are: sitting back and doing nothing; releasing statements saying that they are watching the situation closely.

The problem with all this watching and doing nothing is that it does nothing to help the Muslim women who will:

  • continue to be harassed and abused on public transit and other public places in Quebec e.g. being spit on while taking public transit;
  • soon be denied the right to take books from a library;
  • have to take off their religious headwear to ride on public transit;
  • have to take off their religious headwear to talk or interact with hospital staff.

The fear of the English language, Muslims and escape from those who desire ethnic purity cannot be escaped in Quebec at the government level. There is not a provincial party in Quebec that believes that all Canadians residing in Quebec are entitled to the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Canadian Constitution or the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms. The proof is found that the only opposition to Bill 62 was from MPPs who thought that the bill did not go far enough.  This means that no matter who the English, or Muslims vote for they will always be treated as second class citizens, losing right after right at every turn and the right to services in one of the 2 recognised languages of Canada denied them. Is Quebec the shining example of how Canada deals with what it claims to be, proud and welcomed diversity? If not, why has the federal government  not stepped in with action instead of words to halt the ethnocide going on in Quebec at so many levels?

In January, after six men were gunned down as they knelt in prayer in a mosque in the province of Quebec, provincial Liberal Party leader, Phillip Couillard said in speech that he chooses “confidence, openness, a citizenship that is truly and fully shared for all, regardless of the colour of our skin, regardless of our beliefs or of who we love.”

On June 22, Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard, made an Islamophobic comment while commenting on the stabbing of a Flint, Mich. security officer on June 21 by a Montrealer named Amor Ftouhi who allegedly yelled “Allahu akbar!”   Couillard said, “(We cannot) disconnect these types of events — terrorism — from Islam in general.”

Mr. Bissonnette was motivated by hatred and fear of Muslims and migrants. His actions clearly satisfied the Criminal Code’s legal definition of terrorist activity. (intentionally caused death for a “political … or ideological objective or cause” with the intent to intimidate “a segment of the public”, namely Muslims and perhaps all migrants, “regarding its security.”)

Quebec prosecutors not only chose not to charge Bissonnette with one of 15 specific terrorism offences but presented a doctor to give expert testimony under oath that although the killing of the six praying Muslim men was racist, it was not a terrorist act. This proves that in Canada and Quebec, white, Christian people do not commit terrorist acts, because to qualify for this charge you must be Muslim.  Where was the federal government on this? They put out another statement saying, “We are observing the situation and will take the appropriate action when and if need be.”

Phillip Couillard is also responsible for “Bill 62”, Quebec’s racist, anti religion and anti-Muslim women bill. This bill has nothing to do with maintaining religious neutrality in Quebec, but everything to do with Quebec politicians targeting approximately 100 Muslim women’s right to wear the religious garments mandatory to the practices of their faith. If this were not true other religious bodies would also have to seek religious accommodation to comply with Quebec’s, Bill 62, like:

  • Christians visibly wearing crosses and rosary beads?
  • Jewish men wearing Yarmulkes, or Jewish or orthodox women wearing shawls over their heads when they leave their homes?
  • Sikhs wearing turbans?

Why has the federal government stepped in to protect the rights of these 100 Muslim Canadians?

What is the Canadian government waiting to see in Quebec before they act? I guess in a few years one prime minister or another can apologise for the treatment that the English, Muslim women and other visible minorities were forced to endure in Quebec, while the federal government ignored their plight.

Quebec is not the only place where you find racism, but it is the only place in Canada where politicians get away with making laws that are obviously racist and are immune to federal government intervention.  The video that showed a drunken white woman verbally and racially abusing 2 Muslim men proved that.

After causing a scene telling the men that they were not Canadians and go back to their country, the Denny’s waitress told the Muslim men that they would have to pack up their food and leave, while she apologised to the offensive White woman.  After the video was uploaded, there were the usual apologies and recrimination from local and federal politicians, but interestingly, not one charge filed against the woman and not one politician promising to make it tougher on people who engage in such behavior.

Racism is alive and well in Canada. All provincial politicians in Quebec, some federal MPs, and White supremacists found all over Canada, have been emboldened by the federal governments unwillingness to take divisive action to stop it.

Advertisements
Posted in abuse, abuse of women, Canada, Canandian Politicians, ethnoside, Quebec's Abuse of Its None Quebecoise Residents (Other Canadians), Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Canadian News Reporting No Longer Fundamental To Canadian Democracy


When those responsible for bringing Canadians the news are called out for being fake, or not bothering to check if what they are telling their audience is accurate, they claim that, by attacking their credibility their accusers are undermining one of the fundamental tools of democracy. Their complaint goes on to suggest that without a free press there would be no mechanism to hold those in power to account, no entity willing or able to speak up and bring to the attention of Canadians and the world when those in power violate the civil, moral and human rights of their people or workers, etc. Those who report the news would have Canadians believe that the job that they do is so fundamental to democracy that any challenge to their reporting of it, is an attack on democracy and democratic principles, and values, that could undermine all that democracy and democratic governance, stands for.

There was a time not too long ago that I would have agreed with them. I would have agreed that the Canadian press is fundamental to Canadian democracy. I would have agreed that they were one of the only ways for the average Canadian to get a non-biased, factual accounting of domestic and international, trivial and life altering events taking place. Unfortunately, I see no evidence to make me believe that the assertion by those in the press, is still based in truth.

Once reputable news agencies /owners have succumbed to the threats of their advertisers. They have allowed themselves to be bullied into becoming little more than propaganda spouting tools for politicians, and in turn become the political and social voice of their biggest advertisers.

Ethical reporters of the past would have resisted the pressure to compromise the integrity of a story. Todays reporters however for the most part are merely puppets reading from a teleprompter, spouting words written by someone else.

Truth, facts and journalistic integrity have been replaced, by:

  • the too often used and relied upon, anonymous source;
  • news programs with hosts and guest panels of political pundits.

News reporters have caved into the demands of those who pay their salaries. They now shamelessly, distort and slant the news…turning the coverage of every news worthy story, into little more than political theater. Reporters now read their script and tell the version of the story that will please their bosses, because it pleases their boss’s advertisers. Reporters know that they are misleading their audiences by passing off unsubstantiated information as verified and factually true, but the hallmarks of journalistic integrity, mean little or nothing in 21st century news coverage. This leaves the average Canadian no place to hear just the facts of a story regardless and despite personal feelings, financial considerations, and political whoring.

Canadian news agencies can no longer be considered the back bone of Canadian democracy, because at every level this once credible organisation, defender and guardian of the democratic process and principles, has sold out, for profit. Reporters are no longer reporting just the proved facts, they have joined in with those who seek to gain political, financial and moral power by manipulating facts and distorting reality…using a steady bombardment of half-truths and innuendo, 24 hours a day and 7 days a week.

They (The owners of news agencies,) seek to justify their betrayal of Canadians by saying they had to do something to halt or slow down the loss of their market share, or get run out of business by non-professional, unethical online reporters, who were not bound by the rules of journalistic integrity. Rather than lose to online reporters, they chose to become like them and adopt their rules and behavior.

News Agencies decided that they needed to:

  • make the news entertaining, rather than just a factual, unbiased sharing of information. CBC did a promotional ad with Ian Hanomansing, saying just that;
  • slant the news toward one side or the other if they could find a way to blame the opinions and unproved allegations on a third-party.

In today’s world programs such as, Power& Politics and Power Play are aired daily, and passed off as real news. These programs consist of a host asking questions and requesting opinions of a panel of political pundits, about the daily news.  At the end of these programs the station uses a disclaimer, stating “The views expressed on the show, were that of the panelist, and do not necessarily represent, or reflect the views of the station.”

News agencies/owners are now controlling the false narrative. They are intentionally misinforming their audience, while trying to counter and shield themselves against any accusations of intentionally violating the rules of journalistic integrity, with a fall guy. Advertisers who already control most politicians with financial support are now firmly in control of the daily news and for them it is never what is for the good of the people…it is always what is good for their bank accounts.

News how it is being delivered today is no longer important to holding those in power to account in a properly functioning democracy, because the delivers of the news are now complicit and duplicate in its corruption. Once they decided to take sides on issues and support political parties they turned off their ability to tell the whole truth no matter who it offended or hurt. They became a weapon rather than the guardians of the fundamental democratic principles which are the back bone to any governing democracy. Unfortunately for Canadians rather than telling all the news, news agencies are intentionally controlling what and if you hear the whole, unaltered truth about any news story.

Those in the news business are no longer reporting what can be proved, instead, they are trying to determine who in the story is right or wrong: guilty or not guilty, should be elected or shouldn’t be. They have decided to become the judge, jury. and political king-maker or breaker.

High jacking Canadian politics was the next logical step and they did so, masterfully. Canadian news agencies have now become Canada’s non-elected Loyal Opposition Party and governing party at the same time.  They have become known politically and ideologically as left or right-wing. They are in the business of getting their political choices elected and promoting their sides agenda no matter the cost to truth, or the damage they do to Canadians and the principles of democracy…both things they once stood up for and protected.

Bombarding audiences with opinions, half-truths, unproven allegations, and innuendo, leaves Canadians no better informed then the people of North Korea when it comes to state-run propaganda type news coverage.

If those responsible for bringing Canadians the daily news ever want to be considered as defenders of the people and guardians of Canadian democracy and democratic principles, they must:

  • do so and stop selling out to their advertisers;
  • go back to uncovering and exposing those who would stand in the way of things like freedom of religion, equality for all people under the law;
  • remove opinion and non-substantiated information from news casts and programming;
  • return to a neutral position when bringing the story to its audience.

Democracy was never introduced to bring equality to all under the law, or issues like, who had the right to vote, or an education, as well as what language could be spoken in a province would not keep occurring and being fought for by Canada’s people, throughout Canada’s history.

It was and will always be the principles of a democracy that ensure that those being governed are treated equally under the law and are entitled to the basic freedoms and rights recognised as fundamental to the well-being of all in a democratic society.

Getting rich was not the goal of those who first brought the news to the common man, but exposing injustice and informing a community of current events was.

The industry needs to find its way back to its reason for being, or forever be referred to as, “Fake News”… little more than propaganda spouting tools for politicians, and the political and social voice of their biggest advertisers.

Posted in Canada, Canadian News Shows, Fake News, News, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , ,

Canadian Voters to Blame for What Government Views as Its Agenda Priorities


Canadians need look no further than themselves to answer questions about who, and why programs and policies that would benefit all Canadians are rarely dealt with by their federal government, as a priority.

Canadians elect politicians and political parties into office that offer to fix the one thing that they feel would benefit them the most, rather than for politicians that offer the best plan to improve Canada and in doing so improve the lives of all Canadians. The problem with this is voting strategy is, that whenever any Canadian is left behind, there will be economic and social consequences for Canada and all Canadians.

The blame for the senseless suffering and deaths of Canadians due to government inaction lays squarely on the shoulders of every Canadian of voting age. Voters who do not bother to vote are just as guilty as those who vote for leaders who prioritize legalizing recreational marijuana, instead of ensuring that:

  • universal Medicare and Pharma Care are accessible to all Canadians, in a sustainable program;
  • university and higher forms of education are free, making them truly accessible for all Canadian children who have the marks and the desire to get a higher education;
  • every person in Canada has access to affordable housing;
  • every person in Canada has access to clean drinking water;
  • every child gets enough to eat every day;
  • no Canadian will ever die again after waiting hours to be seen by a doctor in an emergency room;
  • no Canadian will ever die again after waiting for a life saving medical procedure, for the lack of staff, doctors, or recovery beds.

Canadians seem content to elect leaders that seek to resolve serious problems facing Canadians, by making it easier and legal for them to do addictive things.  An example of this is the prime minister’s legalization of online gambling. There is no upside to the federal government legalizing yet another form of gambling in Canada. The financial and social burdens of this policy change will be paid for by many generations of Canadians to come. These burdens, far out ways any temporary, quick fix, created by government financial mismanagement. Using the weakness of addicts to allow government to make financial gains through taxation and permits, does not seem to bother Canadian voters, or politicians.

Addictive gamblers, neglect their responsibilities to their families and fail to provide the necessities of life for their families, such as food and shelter. Their shame and guilt, also leads them to abuse things like alcohol and drugs. All of these addictions combine to the growing severity of domestic and child abuse.  It is the non addicted Canadian who gets to foot the bill for the health services, social services for the addicts and the families that they neglect and abuse. The cost of supporting their neglected families, ultimately are passed on to the middle class Canadian and those working hard to get there.

The same can be said for the use of recreational marijuana. Canadians do not seem to care about any of this though, or the negative effects that marijuana will have on their children’s developing brains.

In the 2015 election the Prime Minister of Canada was not elected and given a majority government, because he campaigned on making sure that:

  • universal Medicare and Pharma Care are accessible to all Canadians, in a in a sustainable program;
  • university and higher forms of education are free, making them truly accessible for all Canadian children who have the marks and the desire to get a higher education;
  • every person in Canada has access to affordable housing;
  • every person in Canada has access to clean drinking water;
  • every child gets enough to eat every day;
  • no Canadian will ever die again after waiting hours to be seen by a doctor in an emergency room;
  • no Canadian will ever die again after waiting for a life saving medical procedure, for the lack of staff, doctors, or recovery beds a priority of his government if elected, but rather for his promise to legalize the growing and recreational use of marijuana.

This was one of the prime minister’s key campaign promises, and one of his clearly stated priorities during the 2015 campaign. This was also one of the first things he set out to accomplish after winning the election.

Canadians do not seem to care that the government keeps getting caught trying to make money to support its programs by allowing the Canadian Revenue Agency to do things like:

  • tax retail workers on employee discounts;
  • deny sick children and adults the Disability Tax Credit when diagnosed with illness such as diabetes, autism, Multiple Sclerosis and PKU, just to name a couple.

As Canadians we also seem okay with any government that is willing to represent some Canadians rather than all Canadians.  The prime minister was sent to Ottawa with a majority government, because of his promise that his government would reflect and represent all Canadians. Since being elected the prime minister has shown that his vision of inclusion all, need only extend to:

  • women;
  • First Nations;
  • Sikhs;
  • and LGBTQ community.

I am pleased that all the above mentioned have gained representation in the government, that governs them. I am also delighted that they have received apologies for the wrongs that past governments of Canada had exposed them to, but what of the other Canadians? Who represents the Black, Muslim, senior, veteran, homeless, poor, and medically challenged, Canadians? Unfortunately, the answer is no Canadian political party, or leader. To them and their backers, helping and standing up for you can’t be translated into votes that could sway an election one way or another.

When the prime minister took to the podium and made official government apologies to First Nations people, the Sikh community and the LGBT community I felt happiness, and said to myself about time., and waited patiently for the apology that had to be coming for Black Canadians…I am still waiting.

I picked on the prime minister today, because he sits in government with a majority and is capable of doing so many good things for Canadians and Canada, but instead he wastes the opportunity prioritizing on things like, legalizing recreational marijuana use and legalizing online gambling…fulfilling the promises that got him elected, by you the Canadian voter, but that are definitely not good for Canada or middle class Canadians and those working hard to get there..

I wish I could say that by getting rid of one leader, or their political party would change things but I do not thing that this would be true.  Canadian politics has nothing to do with what is good for Canada and Canadians, but has everything to do with what Canadians vote for. Right now, Canadians are voting for all the wrong reasons and as a result all of the wrong things.

As government after government, party leader after party leader, fails to make policy changes, that would end the senseless suffering and dying, all Canadians will suffer financially, because all levels of government will pass the financial cost of righting past wrongs and bad policy decisions onto the middle class and those working hard to get there. Standing on the podium and saying we are sorry and throwing money at a problem is how all levels of government seek to quell civil discord and political unrest.  This works for the short-term, but without being backed up with changes to policy to prevent the same problems from resurfacing somewhere else down the road, a vicious circle is created that is not good for Canada, or Canadians.  Unfortunately, it will our children and theirs that will be paying for our bad voting practices.

Conservative Party of Canada leader, Andrew Sheer, Premier of British Columbia, John Horgan; Premier of Quebec, Phillip Couillard, and United Conservative Party of Alberta leader, Jason Kenney, are examples of more Canadian political leaders who do not care what Canada, or Canadians need, but instead count voting bloc numbers to decide their party’s agendas.

 

Posted in Canada, Canadian Federal Elections, Canadian Fedral Elections, Canandian Politicians, Government, Uncategorized | Tagged , , ,

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.

Although:

  • 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 , , , , ,