“The problem is that we, and I agree completely that we’ve had a global temperature increase in the 20th century – yes – but an increase from what. Probably an increase from the lowest point we’ve had for the last 10,000 years. And this means…that…it will be very hard, indeed, to prove whether the increase in temperature in the 20th century was man made, or it’s a natural variation. It will be very hard because we made ourselves an extremely poor experiment. We started to observe meteorology at the coldest spot in the last 10,000 years”.
With the threat of mass deportations from the U.S., and a policy in Canada that allows unauthorized residents to claim asylum should they lay low for 14 days, it’s only rational for would-be claimants to try, Jamie Sarkonak says.
Currently, as the rules stand, migrants from the United States can cross into Canada, wait two weeks, and become eligible to file a refugee claim here. The northern border sure must be looking like a home-free line, now that Donald Trump has been elected on a promise to carry out mass deportations of illegal migrants.
So, if there was ever a time Canada needed to send a very loud, very public, “no more Mr. Nice Guy” message to economically motivated asylum seekers — firm messaging backed up by policy changes to ward their numbers off — it’s right now.
The numbers are already too high. Last year, nearly 150,000 people staked refugee claims here, rendering us the fifth-largest destination for asylum seekers that year. Two years’ worth of asylum claims are inching their way through the immigration system, many of these from friendly not-at-war countries that have no business sending us thousands of refugees.
India, Nigeria, and Mexico are where the largest number of claims come from, but there are many others that shouldn’t be sending refugees our way. Each successful applicant — from friendly, at-peace countries — is a potential online advertisement for immigration services online; that is, potential inspiration for others looking to claim refugee status. Of course, many of these claimants aren’t actually in danger, as required by law, and are willing to travel home, prompting immigration consultants to make warnings against doing so.
With the threat of mass deportations from the U.S., and a policy in Canada that allows unauthorized residents to claim asylum should they lay low for 14 days, it’s only rational for would-be claimants to try. It could very well be a painful squeeze — the U.S. received 1.2 million asylum claims last year alone, and some fraction of that number can be expected to divert to the north come 2025.
The trek to Canada will be a rational one for many. To observers on the outside, we’re the country that welcomes everyone, hands out bags of free food, offers free care, has loads of jobs to fill along with land, oh so much land. We know this isn’t actually how Canada works, but they don’t.
Seriously. Extensive immigration influencer videos have advertised Canadian “free food” to those abroad, which have no doubt made this country a more attractive place to attempt asylum. Rent is often covered by the Canadian tax base as the wait for claim adjudication drags on — which ultimately puts low-income Canadians in competition with migrants for housing. Some also end up competing with homeless Canadians, taking up critical space in shelters from Vancouver to Toronto.
MANY OF THESE CLAIMANTS AREN’T ACTUALLY IN DANGER.
In health care, it’s a similar problem. These populations strain the health-care system: the Star reported last week that “Midwives and physicians in emergency departments said they’re seeing significantly more uninsured clients accessing care at later stages of a complicated pregnancy or an already developed cancer or AIDS.” The uninsured being, in part, migrants who are in Canada illegally. Bad deal for us, good deal for them.
Between rosy influencer advertising and borders-open messaging from our own Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a lot more needs to be done to reverse the perception that Canada is a welcome home for economic “refugees.”
The incoming Trump administration has been strong out of the gate in turning around the perception of the United States as a bottomless bread basket of free amenities. Federal and state governments have rolled out unauthorized-friendly initiatives for a while now: feds have done their best to soften deportation rules, and some state governments have offered perks like pre-paid debit cards for migrants, as well as free rent. But Trump’s messaging has been clear that deportations are coming, and his border-enforcer-to-be, Tom Homan, is just as forceful: “You better start packing now, cause you’re going home,” Homan told a crowd earlier this year.
We haven’t been so firm. Visitor visa rules were tightened this week, but the home-free-in-twoweeks line remains in place.
Most of our country’s messaging includes tepid inward-facing assurances that everything is under control. The faceless blob that is the Canadian administrative state says there’s nothing to worry about: the RCMP learned from post-2016 migration which “provided us with the tools and insight necessary to address similar types of occurrences.” The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) says, “we are ready to respond and adapt as needed.”
Homan, meanwhile, isn’t raving about our competency, stating in a recent TV interview that the northern border is an “extreme national security vulnerability” and that “tough conversations” are soon to be had with Canada.
Meanwhile, Immigration Minister Marc Miller is nonchalant, telling the Globe and Mail: “We will always be acting in the national interest and those measures that we move to undertake, regardless of what decision is taken by the new administration, to make sure that our borders are secure, that people that are coming to Canada do so in a regular pathway, and the reality that not everyone is welcome here.”
Well, that sure sends a message. “Not everyone is welcome here.”
Each statement from Canadian officials has the same bland, inoffensive lack of substance that could only come from either a comms department trained to generate few words of meaning or an AI text generator. None are backed by the force of strong, loophole-closing policy change.
Miller’s job right now isn’t just to soothe Canadians with words as bland as beige walls. He has to dispel years of false impressions of Canadian life inspired by a multitude of enthusiastic foreign-language Youtube and Tiktok howto vlogs about immigration, with rhetoric and hard policy. Right now, he’s falling short.
On Remembrance Day, it is left to ordinary Canadians to honour the dead, Michael Higgins writes.
Left to our virtue-signalling elites, our hapless leaders and our ignorant educators, Canada would have forsworn its solemn duty to remember the dead and honour those who served.
Thankfully, ordinary Canadians are less susceptible to the vagaries of woke culture and DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) policies, and understand that bravery, duty and sacrifice are virtues that require us occasionally to pause, reflect and honour those who served.
But what can we say to the likes of Aaron Hobbs, the principal of Ottawa’s Sir Robert Borden High School, whose characterization of Remembrance Day was that it was usually about “a white guy who has done something related to the military”?
Hobbs’ insult to every Canadian who has served and serves still was made in defence of allowing an Arabic-language Palestinian protest song to be played during a Remembrance Day assembly at the school. Only after righteous anger ensued did Hobbs issue a pro forma apology.
Remembrance Day should have been about honouring those “who have sacrificed their lives for the freedoms we hold dear,” he said in a statement. The inclusion of the song was not in line with the schools “values of respect and unity.”
Whatever values Hobbs seeks to instil in his young students, virtue is not one of them.
Meanwhile, in the lead-up to Remembrance Day, Sackville Heights Elementary in Nova Scotia asked military personnel attending its ceremony not to wear their uniforms in order to “maintain a welcoming environment for all.”
That the school’s leaders thought it would be better to be “welcoming” to all than to have children be proud of those in uniform is a testament to their twisted values. If they want to keep children safe, they should introduce them to the people who are willing to die for that very reason.
Principal Rachael Webster later apologized for the harm the request caused. She added that pupils who didn’t feel safe seeing uniformed military personnel would be accommodated.
There is a certain irony in giving trigger warnings about soldiers.
Hobbs and Webster are examples of people who have lost sight of what is important in order to embrace what is woke. It is unfortunate that they will pass that corrupted sense of value onto a younger generation.
SOME PEOPLE HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO BEHAVE VIRTUOUSLY.
Meanwhile, at the City of Toronto’s official Remembrance Day ceremony, veterans and the public had to sit through an almost twominute-long presentation that included Indigenous land acknowledgments and touched on treaties, settlers, migrants and the transatlantic slave trade.
One of the hallmarks of the new woke is to showcase Canada as a terrible partner in the slave trade, for which we must feel guilty. This is simply a lie, but truth hardly matters to people who haven’t the decency to honour our veterans without an unnecessary preamble.
Rick Hillier, former chief of the defence staff, expressed his outrage on X. “We are nothing but ‘sheep’ to put up with this condescending lecture at any time, but especially today. A day devoted to those who served and sacrificed to build a country that doesn’t have that. Shame,” he wrote.
With leaders such as ours, it is no wonder that brainwashed pro-palestinian protesters thought it was appropriate to show up to a Remembrance Day ceremony in Kingston, Ont., with a flag proclaiming, “To Remember Is To End All War. Free Palestine.”
But “Lest we forget” isn’t about ending the tragedy and futility of war — and the protesters know this. They know Remembrance Day is about honouring those who served. Which is why hijacking the event is such an unforgivable insult.
But since schools don’t teach virtue anymore — just ask Hobbs and Webster — some people have no idea how to behave virtuously.
If the City of Toronto wants a real history lesson, and Hobbs and Webster want to know how to craft a statement with real meaning, I would refer them to Pericles’ oration over the Athenian dead. Pericles understood the choice men faced when confronted with death.
“And when the moment came they were minded to resist and suffer, rather than to fly and save their lives; they ran away from the word of dishonour, but on the battlefield their feet stood fast, and in an instant, at the height of their fortune, they passed away from the scene, not of their fear, but of their glory,’ he said.
And Athens, just as Canada, was greater for their sacrifice.
“I would have you day by day fix your eyes upon the greatness of Athens, until you become filled with the love of her; and when you are impressed by the spectacle of her glory, reflect that this empire has been acquired by men who knew their duty and had the courage to do it,” he continued.
It is left to ordinary Canadians to honour the dead, to remember the cost and to reflect on the courage of those who died and served. Those who love Canada will remember that she was built on the sacrifices of such men. And those who don’t remember will probably become high school principals.
Article Name:The woke hijacking of Remembrance Day
Hello, hello, hello, and welcome to this edition of the Jolly Heretic. Now, today I would like to talk about what happened on the floor of the New Zealand Parliament a few days ago, and what it shows us.
And what it shows us is the mask of the left is surely finally off. These people are not genuinely concerned with equality and harm avoidance. They are concerned with power. They are concerned with power for themselves, and they are concerned with ripping down anything. Anything that is symbolic of traditional power structures, that is symbolic of law and order, that is basically symbolic of civilization.
And that is because they are resentful, they think they should have power, they are narcissistic, they are entitled, they hate anything that is symbolic of power because they feel they don’t have it. Because they’re mentally unstable, and therefore, they go for it and try to destroy it.
So, what is the situation in New Zealand? In New Zealand, there are 65 members of parliament for constituencies, and 51 list MPs. In addition, there are seven Maori MPs. There are seven seats set aside just for Maori people who make up 20 percent of the population. Can you imagine if there were a number of seats set aside in the English Parliament for the descendants of the Anglo Saxons? There would be uproar. But no, there are seven seats set aside for them.
All the government in New Zealand is trying to do is to make it clear that the New Zealand government is sovereign. It’s essentially a bill on equality and ensuring equality between people in New Zealand so that there aren’t extra rights for certain groups. But of course, that’s not good enough for the Maori.
That’s not good enough for the Māori MPs, anyway, I don’t know about the Māori, perhaps they don’t support this nonsense, but it’s not good enough for the Māori MPs. They opposed this bill, and in Parliament, the youngest MP in Parliament, one Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, let’s just call her Hana Clark, tore up the bill, and it initiated a haka, a war dance, a declaration of war, a means of intimidating his majesty’s elected government, a violent, frightening declaration of war. Now some would argue that she and the other Maori MPs and the obsequious white leftists that danced along with it should be arrested at once for treason, for declaring war on his majesty’s government, should be put on trial and hanged.
I’m not saying that should be the case. But some might argue that. But that is what you have. It’s not about equality, because the bill is actually in favor of equality. It’s about intimidation, and it’s about ensuring extra rights and extra power for certain peoples. And that is what the European left in the New Zealand Parliament dance alongside.
That is what they were in favor of, that there should be extra rights for minority peoples. Why? Because they see them. The left are neurotic, are mentally unstable. They therefore are paranoid. They see themselves as disempowered and they want power. They’re frightened to engage in a fair fight. So what do they do? They virtue signal, they signal about equality and harm avoidance. But the studies of course indicate they don’t really care about this. What they’re mainly motivated by is hatred and resentment. They resent symbols of power, like the New Zealand Parliament, like the laws of New Zealand, like whatever, and therefore they will militate in favor of trying to destroy those symbols of power and bring everything down, bring civilization down. Because they are resentful people.
Being mentally unstable, they’re also emotionally incontinent, and so they quite enjoy getting involved in a haka, and expressing themselves, and letting off steam, because they’re so tense, and they’re so unhappy all of the time. But that’s what you’re dealing with. And what the Maori try to argue is, ‘Oh God, oh the Europeans have done these terrible things, they’ve come here and treated the Maori badly, and thus the Maori should have extra rights’.
The Maori went to Chatham Island and wiped out, genocided a group called the Moriori. And when the Maori genocide you the evidence indicates is that they used to engage in cannibalism. And this process continued until the British went there in the 19th century.
You can dress it up however you like. You can dress it up to do with equality, or Christianity, or whatever. But there are group selection battles between peoples that are based around power. And what this was about, this bill, is to, by making everybody equal, is taking away special privileges from the Maori, giving them less power, making them equal citizens of New Zealand, as I understand it.
And they don’t like this. And the left in New Zealand, the white left, they don’t like it either, because they identify with the Maori, and they—because they see the Maori as disempowered—and they use the Maori as a means of virtue signaling, and as a means of gaining status over their own people via virtue signaling, and they like what the Maori represents, and the haka represents, which is violence and disorder and putting down symbols of power, that kind of thing, because they’re resentful people, and so they get involved.
And so the mask is off. The liberals are not about equality or love or justice. They are about power for their own client groups that they can use for their own benefit and power for themselves. I mean, that’s essentially. You know, and this is the extent that they would sacrifice people and whatever for power, it’s all about power.
And I just wonder if we should do this in the British Parliament? I mean, next time the Labor Party passes a law that Anglo Saxon members of Parliament don’t like. Should we dress up like this? And Morris dance? That’ll show them.
We have confronted a fundamental difference between left and right. Those that are governed by reason, and order, and protecting civilization, and keeping things going. And those that are governed by emotion, violence, and hatred. That is the difference between left and right. And what has happened in New Zealand Parliament with the obsequious leftists getting involved in the Haka, getting involved in the war dance, getting involved in intimidation, rather than logical argument, only goes to show this.
It looks as if the incoming government of Donald Trump is serious about rounding up and deporting at least some of the 10-million plus illegals in the U.S. This encouraging prospect is motivating people in Canada.
On November 9, about a dozen study black clad men held a “Mass Deportations Now” sign right in the heart of Hamilton, Ontario outside the Jackson Square Shopping Centre.
the result was a collective freak out by some of the city’s leftist politicians.
According to the Hamilton Spectator (November 11, 2024), Hamilton Centre NDP MP Matthew Green was apoplectic: ““This demonstration, filled with dangerous rhetoric, seeks to undermine the very principles of compassion, diversity, and unity that define Hamilton. Calling for mass deportations and targeting individuals based on ethnicity or nationality is not just divisive; it is a blatant attempt to strip away rights and freedoms.” Perhaps, Green who is black is reading challenged. The Banner says nothing about race or ethnicity. It refers, presumably, to illegals.
‘Indian import “Ward 3 Coun. Nrinder Nann stated: “This is Hamilton, and we will NOT tolerate racist, white nationalism.” So, native Indians and Blacks can promote their own but Whites cannot promote their own interests or oppose their replacement by current immigration policies.
Hamilton’s NDP socialist “Mayor Andrea Horwath said: “There is no space for hate or discrimination of any kind in our city.” The banner doesn’t mention hating anyone and would seem to want to discriminate between those who are legally in this country and those who aren’t
An image of Winnipeg’s National Microbiology Laboratory. Photo by Photo Courtesy of the National Microbiology Laboratory
Canadian public health authorities didn’t have to let the Wuhan Institute of Virology infiltrate and co-opt our country’s highest-security biolab. The warning signs had been there for years, and no one to our knowledge was holding a gun to the heads of the rubber-stampers who authorized a security-threat-flagged scientist’s shipment of live Ebola back to the motherland.
That’s part of why the latest report from the House of Commons committee on China, released Tuesday (conveniently, on the day of the American presidential election), is such a puzzling read. Though a lot of the information contained within has previously trickled into public knowledge, through reporting, committee hearings and released records, the Commons committee’s synthesis shows how Canadian authorities reacted with the haste of a slug — and continue to leave gaping holes in the security of research that can literally be weaponized against human health.
The report sets out a comedy of errors that preceded the 2019 expulsion of scientists Dr. Xiangguo Qiu and Keding Cheng, both Canadian citizens from China working at the Winnipeg National Microbiology Lab, who were ousted for “administrative” reasons.
The husband-wife pair was hired back in 2003 and 2006, respectively, but a decade later began showing suspicious links to Chinese research programs. In 2012, wife Qiu began collaborating with a Chinese military virologist specializing in “bio-defence and bio-terrorism.”
.
In 2016, she was nominated by a Chinese military official for an “International Cooperation Award,” which nodded to her work with the military bioweapons expert and stated that she “used Canada’s Level 4 Biosecurity Laboratory as a base to assist China to improve its capability to fight highly pathogenic pathogens … and achieved brilliant results.” She published a paper with military-linked colleagues sometime afterward, and became a visiting professor at the Academy of Military Medical Sciences working on infectious disease — a position that she left out of her English CV.
In 2017, PHAC greenlit Qiu to travel to Beijing for a conference — but from there, unbeknownst to PHAC, she travelled to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to present on Ebola vaccines. Later that year, PHAC approved Qiu to train others at the Wuhan lab. Around this time or later, via the Wuhan lab, she applied for the Chinese government’s Thousand Talents Program which incentivizes members to clandestinely send overseas research back to China.
After Qiu signed up, the suspicious activity accelerated. In February 2018, she brought over an employee from the Wuhan lab to join her at the Winnipeg lab. In April, she returned to China to “visit family,” with travel expenses paid for by a Chinese biotech firm. In May, Cheung received protein samples from China labelled “kitchen utensils.”
In April 2018, Qiu and Cheung were finally flagged as possible insider threats after CSIS briefed PHAC on foreign interference.
The warning made its way up the chain at a snail’s pace: PHAC’s national security found a suspicious Chinese patent including Qiu in September; the PHAC president was briefed in December, and ordered a private firm to investigate. The private firm tasked with the job concluded in March 2019 that more investigations were needed (duh). PHAC leadership contemplated an internal investigation and finally called the RCMP in May. CSIS began investigations in June.
In July, the scientists were finally kicked out of the lab.
During the entire time that authorities were groggily waking up to the idea that these top scientists might be working as agents for a foreign government, the scientists accelerated their pace. Qiu flew back to the Wuhan lab — with PHAC’s approval — where she was now a “visiting research scientist.” Qiu’s staff recruit from Wuhun was caught trying to sneak tubes out of the Winnipeg lab. The Winnipeg security began noticing a suspicious number of visitors walking around the lab unattended. Cheng tried to enter the lab with another employee’s passcode. Qiu shipped a live sample of Ebola back to the Wuhan lab — again, with PHAC’s approval.
The final stages of a fatal Ebola infection (that is, about half of all Ebola infections) involve profusely bleeding from one’s eyes, nose, mouth and rectum. It’s absolutely not the kind of virus you want getting into the wrong hands, say, those of an unfriendly government whose modified virus experiments have been “credibly suggested” to have escaped from its labs.
Nevertheless, it was only after the scientists’ exile that a CSIS investigation determined that their continued presence at the Winnipeg lab would pose a national security threat. They were formally fired in 2021, and have since disappeared to who knows where — yes, they were permitted to leave the country after the debacle.
The entire period of infiltration was lined with an attitude of nonchalance by government officials who appeared at the China committee. The Winnipeg lab director at the time defended the lab’s slow response by stating that neither CSIS nor PHAC advised him to kick the scientists out; he handwaved approving the Ebola-by-mail. The PHAC president justified the long timeline with the thoroughness of the investigation.
Only former CSIS director Richard Fadden was the voice of reason: “too long,” was his assessment of the kicking-out.
On the health and research side, the passive attitude seems to go all the way up to the top. Security-wise, Canada brought in a new research policy in January 2024 restricting government funding from supporting research on “sensitive technology” (weapons, surveillance, AI, space, etc.) with any connection to certain suspicious research organizations.
The list of collaborators banned from receiving Canadian funding includes only Chinese, Russian and Iranian schools and military units. Not on the list, however, is the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which has already benefitted from exploited Canadian research once. It’s also known for possibly being the place that accidentally started a pandemic by letting COVID out of the lab, which doesn’t inspire confidence when it comes to handling our mail-in Ebola.
The House of Commons China committee is wisely recommending that the Wuhan lab be added to the list of research collaborators ineligible for Canadian taxpayer support, and, more wisely, the end to all government research teamwork with China on sensitive matters.
It’s further recommended that Canada come up with a list of “trusted” countries which will be the sole permitted recipients of highly dangerous live viruses that could kill millions if unleashed. Because, it turns out, we didn’t have one.
But under all this is a problem that’s going to take more than a committee to solve. Careless lab directors can still allow suspicious lab staff to send live pathogen samples to unfriendly countries. Research dollars can be siphoned off to support places like the Wuhan lab. Half-measures and painstakingly laggy responses are endemic to this government, and this weakness will continue to make us a prime target.
