Tag Archives: Dominion Day

The Dominion of Canada – An Annotated Bibliography

Posted on July 9, 2024 by CFIRC

Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

Monday, July 1, 2024

The Dominion of Canada – An Annotated Bibliography

Today is the 157th anniversary of the day when the British North America Act came into effect establishing a new realm in North America that under the reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria and governed by her own Parliament in Ottawa would bear the title of Dominion and the name of Canada. Originally a confederation of four provinces she would grow to include six others along with the territories which were originally a single territory, which was divided twice, just before the twentieth century and at that century’s end bringing the current number to three. Although I was only six when the Liberals, lacking the necessary quorum in Parliament, sneakily and illegally passed a bill changing the name of our country’s holiday I still refer to it as Dominion Day which the great Robertson Davies, writing to the Globe and Mail, once described as a “splendid title” while referring to the new one as “wet” due to its being one letter off Canada Dry, and the folly of the Liberal parliamentarians as “one of the inexplicable lunacies of a democratic system temporarily running to seed.”

Normally for Dominion Day I write an essay, sometimes about a notable Canada, sometimes a more political piece blasting the Liberals, big and small l, and all the changes for the worse that they have wrought. Last year’s essay was a call for religious revival in Canada. This year I decided to do something a bit different and have put together a Dominion Day recommended reading list. This list is not intended to be exhaustive either in whole or in any of the sections into which it is divided so non-inclusion in this list should not be taken as a recommendation against a book on my part.

Canada: Political Philosophy

The two books that top my list of recommendations for Canadian political reading are ones to which long-time readers will have seen me make multiple mentions. These are John Farthing’s Freedom Wears a Crown (Toronto: Kingswood House, 1957) and the Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker’s Those Things We Treasure: A Selection of Speeches on Freedom and Defence of Our Parliamentary Heritage (Toronto: Macmillan, 1972). The first of these, which was published posthumously having been edited by journalist Judith Robinson who herself passed away not that long after, makes the case for our constitutional parliamentary monarchy against the alternatives of American capitalist republicanism or Soviet socialist totalitarianism which at the time were striving to remake the entire world, each in her own image, in the conflict we remember as the Cold War. Farthing also discusses the first stage of the Liberal Party’s subversion of our constitution in the King-Byng affair. A more thorough examination and defense of the constitutional principles represented by the right side of that almost century old controversy, that of Lord Byng (the King in the name of the affair was not King George V, whom Byng represented as Governor-General, but the Liberal Prime Minister whose last name was King) can be found in Eugene Forsey’s doctoral dissertation which was published as The Royal Power of Dissolution of Parliament in the British Commonwealth (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1943). I mention this third book, which in its dissertation form can be found online if you have any difficulty locating a hard copy, before commenting on Diefenbaker’s because of its topical connection with Farthing’s. Diefenbaker’s book collects speeches that he gave during and in response to the second wave of Liberal subversion. It is mostly changes wrought early in the premiership of Pierre Trudeau that are decried although the second wave of Liberal subversion can be dated to the moment that Lester Pearson, with the aid of both the Social Credit and the New Democrats, ousted Diefenbaker in 1963. For the classic account of this act of Liberal subversion see George Grant’s Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism (Montreal: McGill University Press, 1965) which is the most political of Grant’s books, although it incorporates the philosophical and moral insights more typical of his other writings.

The fifth book that deserves mention under this heading is The Social Criticism Of Stephen Leacock: The Unsolved Riddle of Social Justice and Other Essays (Toronto: The University of Toronto Press, 1973) which was edited by Alan Bowker and which incorporates the whole of Leacock’s The Unsolved Riddle of Social Justice, originally published in 1920 and which is a critique rather than an endorsement of socialism, as well as “Greater Canada: An Appeal” and several of the essays from Leacock’s Essays and Literary Studies (1916), including his “The Woman Question” which is the best single piece ever written by a Canadian on the subject of feminism. Leacock was the chair of the Department of Economics and Political Science at McGill where he was a mentor to both Farthing and Forsey. Noting this connection brings me to the sixth book, Radical Tories: The Conservative Tradition in Canada (Toronto: House of Anansi Press, 1982). The author of this book was Charles Taylor, not the philosopher but the journalist and race horse breeder. Eugene Forsey and George Grant both get a chapter in this book, the chapters being based on Taylor’s personal interviews with these men, which is the same format used for the chapters on the historians Donald Creighton and William Morton and a few others. Leacock and Farthing obviously could not be similarly interviewed although Taylor discussed Leacock and mentioned Farthing earlier in the book.

Canada: Topical Politics

The distinction between the books under the previous heading and the books under this one is that the previous books addressed Canadian politics in terms of general political philosophy whereas these address specific issues. The Stephen Leacock book could have gone in either section.

On the subject of immigration, which is a very hot button topic today, Doug Collins’ Immigration: the Destruction of English Canada (Richmond Hill: BMG, 1979) is arguably still the best Canadian book ever written. It was the eighth and last book published by BMG, a small publishing house set up by Winnett Boyd, Kenneth McDonald and Orville Gaines to warn against the path down which Pierre Trudeau was leading Canada. This was very early in the era of liberal immigration and Collins accurately predicted that the end result would be the importation of a lot of unnecessary and unwanted racial strife. For warning against importing racial strife Collins was branded a racist. Since that warning went unheeded, he was a Cassandra and his enemies did their worst to make him a pariah by the time he passed away in 2001. More of his commentary on immigration and a host of other issues can be found in The Best and Worst of Doug Collins (Vancouver: Whitecap Books, 1987). When this book was first published you could walk into an ordinary bookstore and buy it off the shelf. When he died in 2001, the only obituaries I remember seeing were by Kevin Michael Grace in the Report and by Allan Fotheringham in MacLeans (I was never a fan of Foth but he showed a lot of class on this occasion). The next book on my list on this topic is Ricardo Duchesne’s Canada in Decay: Mass Immigration, Diversity and the Ethnocide of Euro-Canadians (London: Black House Publishing, 2017). Of all recent books on Canadian immigration this is the closest to Collins’ in terms of what it is for and what it is against although it tackles the subject from an academic rather than a journalistic angle – Duchesne is a historical sociologist who until he was driven out by leftist colleagues a few years back was a professor in the social science department of the University of New Brunswick – and has the advantage of almost four more decades of history on which to comment. Other books deserving mention are Charles M. Campbell’s Betrayal & Deceit: The Politics of Canadian Immigration (West Vancouver: Jasmine Books, 2000) and Mike Taylor’s The Truth About Immigration: Exposing the Economic and Humanitarian Myths (Coquitlam: KARMA Publishing, 1998). These could be described as having been written from an insider’s perspective. Campbell, an engineer in the mining industry by profession, served ten years on the old Immigration Appeal Board that existed before it was reorganized into the Immigration and Refugee Appeal Board in 1989 following the Supreme Court’s bad ruling in the Singh case in 1985. Taylor had worked as an immigration investigator for the federal government before writing his book.

The current Liberal government that has taken rather the opposite view of immigration to that expressed in the books just mentioned has promoted a lot of hatred against Canada or at least the historical Canada. They have also promoted a lot of ethno-masochism among Canadians of European ancestry. I am not saying that these problems began with the present government, far from it, but they have been more aggressively promoted by this government than any prior and the means employed has been a narrative in which the history of the church-administered boarding schools that Canada used to fulfil her education obligations under the Indian treaties has been heavily distorted. In response I will recommend two books both of which are edited collections by multiple authors. The first is Rodney A. Clifton and Mark DeWolf ed. From Truth Comes Reconciliation: An Assessment of the Truth and Reconciliation Report (Winnipeg: The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, 2021) and the second is C. P. Champion and Tom Flanagan ed. Grave Error: How the Media Misled Us (And the Truth About Residential Schools) (Dorchester Books and True North Media, 2023).

Since my recommendations in the previous two paragraphs will have already driven any overly sensitive progressive into a fuming frenzy I will stoke the fire of their rage further by adding Down The Drain? A Critical Re-Examination of Canadian Foreign Aid, written by Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform co-founders Paul Fromm and James P. Hull and published in Toronto by Griffin House in 1981. This is the best Canadian book that I have read on the subject of tax money being taken from working and middle class Canadians and either dumped into the bank accounts of Third World dictators or thrown away on wasteful projects in the Third World. While the book is obviously in need of either an update or a sequel the issue, which had largely been dormant for a decade or more, has been brought back to life with a vengeance by the present Trudeau Liberals.

When it comes to the topic of the ongoing moral and social decay of our country and Western Civilization in general in the post-World War II era the best and certainly most exhaustive book by a Canadian that comes to my mind is The War Against the Family: A Parent Speaks Out On the Political, Economic, and Social Policies That Threaten Us All. The author was the late William D. Gairdner who competed for Canada in the 1964 Summer Olympics before going to university and earning his Ph.D. and becoming a well-known small-c conservative speaker and writer. This, his second book, was originally published in hardback in1992 by Stoddart of Toronto who released a paperback edition the following year. After Stoddart folded, BPS Books of Toronto re-released the paperback edition in 2007 with a new cover which as far as I can tell is the only revision made. In connection with this book I would also recommend by the same author The Book of Absolutes: A Critique of Relativism and a Defence of Universals (Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, 2008). Where the first book looks at such matters as “Compulsory Miseducation”, “Moral Values and Sex Ed”, “The Feminist Mistake: Women Against the Family”, “Women at War: On the Military, Day Care and Home Fronts”, “Radical Homosexuals vs. The Family”, “The Invisible Holocaust: Abortion vs. the Family” to give a few chapter titles in whole or in part from the perspective of the official policies behind the various changes involved the second book digs deeper and addresses the basic ideas of which the official policies are practical applications.

The War Against the Family included a chapter on euthanasia as well as a chapter on abortion and this has become a far more timely topic due to the present government’s having introduced the world’s most aggressive and extreme euthanasia policy in M.A.I.D. Another book that addressed both abortion and euthanasia from the perspective of showing how the Modern technological way of thinking and doing has conditioned people to reject the older way of thinking about justice that rejected and condemned these things and to embrace a newer way of thinking that accepts them was George Grant’s final book Technology and Justice (Toronto: House of Ananasi Press, 1986). The chapters on abortion and euthanasia are the last two in the book and these Grant co-wrote with his wife Sheila.

Bill Whatcott’s Born In a Graveyard: One man’s transformation from a violent, drug-addicted criminal into Canada’s most outspoken family values activist (Langley: Good Character Books, 2014) is the autobiography, or perhaps testimony would be a better word, of a man who has paid the price for translating his Christian views on these matters, especially abortion and homosexuality, into practice in the form of activism. Whatcott was charged by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for distributing pamphlets that colourfully expressed his opinion about the alphabet soup gang’s public schools agenda. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal ruled against Whatcott who appealed to what was then the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench (now King’s Bench) which upheld the Tribunal’s ruling, then to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal which ruled in favour of Whatcott causing the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada which held hearings in 2011 and unanimously ruled in 2013 that while Whatcott’s rights under section 2 of the Charter had indeed been violated those who so violated them were allowed to get away with it because of the loop-hole in section 1. Needless to say this asinine ruling in which the expression of “detestation” and “vilification” was declared to be outside the protection of free expression (I suspect that the “detestation” and “vilification” of white people, men, and Christians is treated as an exception) was not exactly a step in the direction of freeing Canadians from the unjust shackles of censorship and self-censorship that the first Trudeau introduced early in his premiership. Today it is part of the legal precedent that the second Trudeau and his cronies look to in order to justify and explain their attempts to pass draconian laws telling us what we can and cannot say on the internet. Since Whatcott is up before the Supreme Court again this time on charges pertaining to his creative evangelistic efforts at a Hubris parade in Toronto a sequel may be on the horizon.

Canada: History

The first book on Canadian history that I recommend is W. L. Morton’s The Kingdom of Canada: A General History from Earliest Times (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1963). The author, who was born in Gladstone, was the head of the Department of History at the University of Manitoba from 1950 to 1964. Among his other books, all of which are worth reading, are histories of the university and of the province. Taking its name from the original full designation of the country proposed by the Fathers of Confederation this one-volume history of Canada ends on the eve of the second wave of seditious, Liberal, revolution-within-the-form under Pearson-Trudeau.

The second on my list would be the complete works of Donald G. Creighton. Alright, you can omit Take-Over (Toronto: McClelland and Steward, 1978) because that is a novel, but The Young Politician (Toronto: Macmillan, 1952) and The Old Chieftain (Toronto: Macmillan, 1955), the two volumes of his biography of Sir John A. Macdonald must remain on the list for the story of the life of the foremost Father of Confederation is an absolutely essential part of Canadian history and no one tells it better than Creighton. Read both volumes in the original editions if you can, but if you must read the current one-volume edition from the University of Toronto Press consider skipping over the introduction by Creighton’s own biographer, Donald Wright of the University of New Brunswick. His apologizing for Creighton’s not holding to the stomach-churning, woke, entirely-wrong, perspectives of the present day are bad enough in his biography of Creighton without marring Creighton’s masterful account of Sir John’s life. My recommendation again is for the entire corpus of Creighton’s writings. I will not list them all but a few deserve special mention. The book that earned him his reputation is one of these, The Commercial Empire of the St. Lawrence, 1760-1850 (Toronto: The Ryerson Press, 1937), in which Creighton tells the history of the use of the St. Lawrence River as a means of trade and transportation in the century leading up to Confederation. Goldwyn Smith had written a book that was published in the year of Sir John A. Macdonald’s death in which he argued that Confederation was a mistake because it was a project undertaken against the natural north-south flow of trade in North America. That year, the Canadian public gave their answer to Smith’s thesis by awarding Macdonald, who was running against Sir Wilfred Laurier’s Liberals who were campaigning on a platform of free trade, a landslide victory. Creighton’s book was the scholarly answer. Editions of it published from 1956 on have omitted the “Commercial” from the title. His The Forked Road: Canada 1939-1957 (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1976) was published as Volume XVIII, the penultimate of the Canadian Centenary Series that he and W. L. Morton had started and edited. It can also be regarded as the last in a series of books that he authored bringing the history of Canada down from the pre-Confederation period that he covered in The Commercial Empire and The Road to Confederation: The Emergence of Canada, 1863-1867 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1964) down to the end of the St. Laurent premiership. While I don’t think anybody would claim that this was the best book he ever wrote it is too often criticized for taking the opinion that the Liberals under King and St. Laurent were leading the country down into the sewer if not lower. Creighton died three years after it was published. Imagine what he would have said if he had lived to write the history of the two Trudeau eras.

The penultimate entry in this section is David Orchard’s The Fight for Canada: Four Centuries of Resistance to American Expansionism (Toronto: Stoddart Publishing, 1993, revised and expanded edition Montreal: Robert Davies Multimedia Publishing: 1998). This book is a history of Canadian resistance to continentalism and particularly to American economic conquest via free trade. The first edition came out during the talks on expanding the US-Canada Free Trade Agreement that Brian Mulroney and Ronald Reagan, both men betraying the protectionist traditions of their own parties, had signed in 1988 into the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which came into effect on the first day of 1994. The expanded edition came out during Orchard’s campaign for the Progressive Conservative leadership in 1998. This was also the occasion for the writing/compilation of Ron Dart’s The Red Tory Tradition: Ancient Roots, New Routes (Dewdney BC: Synaxis Press, 1999) which is why I am adding it here rather than in the general political philosophy section.

Canada: Christianity

The first book in this section will be the Right Rev. Philip Carrington’s The Anglican Church of Canada: A History (Toronto: Collins, 1963). This book was first published the same year as W. L. Morton’s The Kingdom of Canada in which year the second wave of the Liberal subversion of the country began under the premiership of Lester Pearson. A small-l, theological liberal subversion of the Church was already underway. A small indication of that can be seen in the 1962 Canadian edition of the Book of Common Prayer, in which the Psalter is bowdlerized to omit the imprecatory portions of the Psalms, including the 58^th in its entirety. This was unfortunate in that it marred what is otherwise an excellent adaptation of the Restoration BCP of 1662. It was a mild display of liberalism, however, compared to that which would soon sweep the Church leading to the present day in which I dare say most of the prelates wish that this history, written by the seventh Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Quebec who went on to become the eleventh Metropolitan Archbishop of the Ecclesiastical Province of Canada, would be swept under the rug and forgotten.

With regards to the liberal sweep of the Church I recommend two books both written in the late 1990s. Suicide – The Decline and Fall of the Anglican Church of Canada? (Cambridge Publishing House, 1999) was written by Dr. Marney Patterson who was sometimes described as the “Anglican Billy Graham.” He wrote six other books with more uplifting topics and by the time he passed away two years ago had transferred to the Anglican Network in Canada. A year prior to this Rev. George R. Eves had released Two Religions One Church: Division and Destiny in the Anglican Church of Canada (Saint John: V.O.I.C.E., 1998) which he has recently updated and made available as an e-book. While the increasing willingness of the Church to depart from both Scripture and Tradition on the matter of moral theology as it pertains to those attracted to their own sex was the occasion for the writing of both of these books, Dr. Patterson and Rev. Eves both address the larger problem of liberalism. Dr. Patterson dealt well with the matter of how the unwillingness to stand for unpopular Scriptural truth compromises the Church’s ability to evangelize. Rev. Eves discussed how the introduction of the Book of Alternative Services, which in many parishes is not so much an alternative to the Book of Common Prayer but its replacement, was a victory for liberalism since on the lex orandi, lex credenda principle if you change the liturgy you change the belief. These books both came out within five years of the conference sponsored by the Prayer Book Society, Anglican Renewal Ministries, and Barnabas Ministries for the purpose of addressing these concerns that produced the Montreal Declaration of Anglican Essentials. The papers at the conference were edited by George Egerton and published as Anglican Essentials: Reclaiming Faith Within the Anglican Church of Canada (Toronto: Anglican Book Centre, 1995).

One of the speakers at the Montreal Essentials conference was the Rev. Dr. Robert D. Crouse, a priest and academic from Nova Scotia, where his home town was Crousetown, in which the house where he grew up was on Crouse Road (his family had lived there for centuries). His address to the conference was entitled “Hope Which Does Not Disappoint” in which he warned against “that most dangerous of all sins” despair, to which souls, left weary and lethargic from the “widespread destruction of theological and liturgical tradition” resulting from the false persuasion that the ancient, ecumenical, and Anglican heritage is “somehow outmoded and inappropriate in the present time” are tempted and gave the timely reminder that our “spiritual health depends crucially on a revival of hope”, the virtue that is the opposite of the vice of despair, and which rests upon faith in the promises of God. I cannot recommend a book that Dr. Crouse wrote because while he contributed to books and wrote plenty of reviews and articles, he never wrote a book qua book. His doctoral dissertation was a translation. Last year, however, Darton, Longman & Todd in London released three books compiled from his sermons. These are Images of Pilgrimage: Paradise and Witness in Christian Spirituality, The Souls Pilgrimage – Volume 1: From Advent to Pentecost: The Theology of the Christian Year: The Sermons of Robert Crouse and The Soul’s Pilgrimage – Volume 2: The Descent of the Dove and the Spiritual Life: The Theology of the Christian Year: The Sermons of Robert Crouse. He had talked to Essentials about the need for renewing the Christian spiritual life, these books describe what that very thing looks like.

Two other speakers at the Montreal Essentials conference were Ron Dart and J. I. Packer. In response to a book by Michael Ingham, who occupied the See of New Westminster at the time and basically stood for the opposite of what Essentials stood for, they wrote In a Pluralist World (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 1998) which returned to print in 2019 under the new title Christianity and Pluralism and published by Lexham Press in Bellingham. While the origins of this book place it in the context of the same ecclesiastical turmoil that produced the books mentioned in the previous paragraphs Dart and Packer concentrate here on the question of the competing ways that have been proposed for Christians to deal with the competing truth claims of multiculturalism. Since I mentioned another book by Dart in the previous section I would add another book by Packer except that my favourites of his books were all written before he moved to Canada. So read the revised editions.

One thing that Anglican bishops and fundamentalist Baptists have in common is that they tend to be great subjects for biographies and to write excellent autobiographies. The Right Reverend John Cragg Farthing, father of the John Farthing mentioned in the first section (whose middle name was Colborne so this is not a case of Sr. and Jr. which requires all the names to match) and the Bishop of Montreal in the early twentieth century wrote an excellent memoir entitled Recollections of the Right Rev. John Cragg Farthing, Bishop of Montreal (1909-1939). It was printed without any publication information but was likely published either by Farthing himself or by what would then have been called the Church of England in Canada at some point in the early 1940s. The Right Reverend John Strachan, the first Bishop of Toronto and an important figure in pre-Confederation Canada did not write his own biography but his successor the Right Reverend A. N. Bethune wrote a very readable Memoir of the Right Reverend John Strachan, D.D., D. C. L., First Bishop of Toronto (Toronto: Henry Rowsell, 1870). If the title confuses you note that while “memoirs” and “autobiography” are often used interchangeably they are not the same thing. An autobiography is when someone tells the story of his own life. A memoir is recorded memory of something, an event, a person, whatever. There is a lot of overlap but basically in an autobiography one’s self is always the subject whereas one’s memoir can be focused on the people and places and events one knew rather than on one’s self. An account of someone else’s life can be called a memoir if the writer knew the person well which is the case here. Either type can be called a memoir. If there is an s on the end it is referring either to more than one book or, less properly but more commonly, to the kind that overlaps with autobiography. The Most Reverend Robert Machray, the second Bishop of the Diocese of Rupert’s Land to which my own parish belongs, became the first primate of what would become the Anglican Church of Canada. His biography, written by a nephew of the same name, came out the year he died. That is Robert Machray, Life of Robert Machray, Archbishop of Rupert’s Land (Toronto: Macmillan, 1909).

As for the fundamentalist Baptists, since we are listing Canadian books here the obvious biography to mention is Leslie K. Tarr’s Shields of Canada (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967). Like his subject, Leslie K. Tarr was a Baptist minister, as well as the first editor of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada’s publication Faith Today. His subject, T. T. Shields was the pastor of Jarvis Street Baptist Church in Toronto and of the Baptist preachers who fought for orthodoxy against encroaching liberalism in their denomination was by far the most prominent Canadian. He joined the short-lived Baptist Bible Union and in consequence is usually remembered alongside that group’s co-founders, W. B. Riley of Minneapolis and J. Frank Norris of Fort Worth as a sort of triumvirate of the Baptist fundamentalism of the era. Honourable mention goes to Lois Neely’s Fire In His Bones: The Official Biography of Oswald J. Smith (Carol Stream: Tyndale House, 1982). Oswald J. Smith was not a Baptist. He was first ordained a Presbyterian minister, then switched to Christian and Missionary Alliance (the founder of which, A. B. Simpson, was originally a Presbyterian from Prince Edward Island), before founding the non-denominational megachurch the People’s Church of Toronto. As pastor of People’s Church before handing the reins over to his son Paul B. Smith he was probably the best known evangelical preacher in Canada in the twentieth century. I’ll also throw in Perry F. Rockwood’s Triumph in God: The Life Story of Radio Pastor Perry F. Rockwood (Halifax: The People’s Gospel Hour, 1974). At fifty-seven pages and staple bound it is a booklet rather than a book and the only one to make it into this list. Rockwood was ordained in the Presbyterian Church of Canada in 1943 which at that point consisted of the parishes that had opted to remain Presbyterian after most, about seventy percent, had joined with the Methodists to become the United Church in 1925. While one might think that those who opted out of the merger would be very conservative and orthodox it was only a few years after his ordination that Rockwood was hauled before an ecclesiastical court over four sermons he gave on the subject of “The Church Sick unto Death” and while a case could made that he was indeed guilty of the charge of “divisiveness” a stronger case can be made that those who put him on trial were guilty of exactly what he charged them with in the sermons i.e., the greater crime of defecting, not only from the Presbyterian Westminster Confession but from the basic Christian faith as confessed in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. The four sermons are reproduced in full in his autobiography.

This section would not be complete without The Christians: Their First Two Thousand Years, a twelve-volume history of Christianity that was produced from 2001 to 2013. The idea for it came from the late Ted Byfield, most remembered as the founding editor and publisher of the Alberta Report newsmagazine the final version of which folded in 2003 the year the first volume was published. Byfield served as general editor of the series. The series was published out of Edmonton under the imprint of The Christian History Project which after 2006 came under the aegis of SEARCH, the Society to Explore And Record Christian History. I exclude volume 10 from the recommendation because it presents the Enlightenment, the separation of church and state, and basically the Modern way of doing things or liberalism as the product, albeit unintended, of Christianity rather than what it actually is, the embodiment of the Modern Age’s apostasy from and rebellion against Christianity. Byfield began his Christian walk as an orthodox Anglican and joined the Eastern Orthodox Church in the events mentioned previously in this section and so has no excuse for not knowing better.

Canada – Humour

All of Stephen Leacock’s fiction can be included here, as can, for that matter, his non-fiction for even when writing on serious subjects he was funny.

Peter V. Macdonald, Q. C., a lawyer from Hanover had a column that appeared in the Toronto Star entitled “Court Jesters” in which he recounted hilarious true anecdotes from courtrooms across Canada. A compilation of these was published as Court Jesters: Canada’s Lawyers and Judges Take the Stand to Relate Their Funniest Stories (Toronto: Stoddart, 1985). This was followed up by a sequel More Court Jesters: Back to the Bar for More of the Funniest Stories from Canada’s Courts (Toronto: Stoddart, 1987) and then Return of the Court Jesters: By Popular Demand More of the Funniest Stories From Canada’s Courts (Toronto: Stoddart, 1990). I received the first one of these for Christmas one year and annoyed my family for days with loud laughter. There are also versions of at least the first two books in which the anecdotes are illustrated with cartoons. It appears he also wrote a book with funny police stories. I have not seen a copy although I have read a similar book by Bruce Day, a retired police officer here in Winnipeg, that was self-published in 1995 and is entitled Stop! Police Humour.

Another collection of hilarious true stories is Ben Wicks’ Book of Losers (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1979). The author whose name is indeed part of the title was best known as a cartoonist. He followed it up with Ben Wicks’ More Losers (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1982). It should be obvious what these stories are like but if not here is the definition of a loser provided at the beginning of the first book “A German tourist, en route to the west coast, who steps off his plane in Bangor, Maine, and spends four days there thinking he is in California.” Actually that is quite mild compared to what happens to most of the people in the book. Wicks’ wrote and illustrated several other books of humour. The only two that I have read are his Ben Wicks’ Canada and Ben Wicks’ Women which were also published by McClelland and Stewart in 1976 and 1978 respectively.

Canada – Fiction

I will not be listing all the titles and bibliographic details in this section because it would be very tedious due to the number of lengthy series included. What I recommend under this heading are all the works of fiction of Lucy Maud Montgomery, Robertson Davies, and Mazo de la Roche. Remember that this recommended reading list, neither in whole nor in any section, is intended to be exhaustive, and that non-mention of an author does not constitute a recommendation against. There are Canadian writers that I would recommend against but I am not going to name them here because that is not the purpose of this list.

L. M. Montgomery is, of course, internationally famous as the author of Anne of Green Gables, the first in a series of eight novels chronicling the life of the title character. Two collections of short stories, Chronicles of Avonlea and Further Chronicles of Avonlea are also part of the Anne of Green Gables continuity. If you remember Kevin Sullivan’s television series Road to Avonlea it was based in part on these short stories although the main characters of that series were taken from The Story Girl and The Golden Road neither of which were connected to the Anne storyline in Montgomery’s original novels. She wrote several other novels, some in series such as the Emily of New Moon trilogy, others stand alone.

Robertson Davies tended to write his fiction in trilogies, including those that he wrote as “Samuel Marchbanks” the pen-name he used when writing for the Peterborough Examiner in his time as editor. A selection of his Marchbanks pieces were collected and published as three volumes, although it is best, in my opinion, to read them in the later omnibus edition The Papers of Samuel Marchbanks for while some abridgement takes place you also get a great introduction in which Davies interviews his alter-ego Marchbanks. There are three completed trilogies of novels that are usually called the Salterton, Deptford and Cornish trilogies, the first two after the fictional locations in which they are set, the third after the character whose death sets off the plot of the first novel and whose life is told in the second. Davies started a fourth trilogy, set in Toronto, but only completed two of the novels. The earliest of these trilogies, the Salterton, is my favourite. Davies also wrote several plays but only one book of short stories, High Spirits, a collection of the ghost stories that he composed to tell at Massey College at the school’s Gaudy Night each year while he was Master (president, headmaster, principal) there.

Mazo de la Roche was for much of the twentieth century the single most read Canadian novelist. An interesting piece of trivia is that she is buried in St. George’s Anglican cemetery at Sibbald Point in Sutton West the other most famous resident of which is Stephen Leacock whose grave is very close to hers. She wrote short stories and plays as well, but is most remembered for her twenty some novels of which the most read are the Jalna series, a family saga, somewhat like a novelized soap opera, spanning one century over sixteen books. Jalna was the first published in 1927. Its title is the name of the family estate or more properly the manor on the estate where the novels are set. The family that live there bear the last name Whiteoak and so the series is also known albeit less commonly as the Whiteoak saga. The hero of the saga is Renny Whiteoak, who inherits the estate and the role if not the authority of family patriarch from his father and grandfather, fights in both World Wars, and breeds and rides show horses while trying to raise his own younger brothers and keep the struggling estate afloat. We had a number of hard cover editions of these books in the family library when I was a child. The ones I remember usually featured Renny on a horse on the cover. The real ruler of the family was Renny’s grandmother Adeline whom the family called Gran, a sharp-tongued old woman who kept them all in line by not disclosing the sole beneficiary of her will and who had a parrot that she taught to make extremely rude remarks in Hindi. The books were not published in order of internal chronology, although as with C. S. Lewis’ children’s novels subsequent re-print editions have numbered them in that order. The last of the series to be published, Morning at Jalna, which came out in 1960 the year before de la Roche died, is second in internal chronology, being set just prior to Confederation in the period in which the American North and South were fighting. This book’s not-so-subtle sympathy with the South was a not-so-subtle expression of de la Roche’s contemptuous opinion of the “second Reconstruction” then underway in the United States. That such sentiment prevented neither the publication of the novel nor the adaptation of the entire series into the television mini-series The Whiteoaks of Jalna and by CBC nonetheless about ten years after her death demonstrates how much healthier and saner our country was in terms of not having to toe a party line on liberal social values before two generations of Trudeaus messed everything up. The last of the novels in terms of internal chronology was Centenary at Jalna and it was set in the year in which it is was published, 1954. That it is set exactly one hundred years after the story begins, as the title indicates, would suggest that this was where de la Roche intended the saga to end, although the ending of the novel itself very much suggests otherwise

That brings this list to a close. If you are looking for something to read this Dominion Day because some Canada-hating woke jackasses have cancelled the celebrations in your area try one or more of these.

Happy Dominion Day!

God Save the King!

Posted by Gerry T. Neal at 12:30 AM

Labels: Dominion Day, Donald Creighton, Eugene Forsey, George Grant, John Farthing, John G. Diefenbaker, L. M. Montgomery, Mazo De La Roche, Peter V. Macdonald, Robertson Davies, Ron Dart, Stephen Leacock, W. L. Morton

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: Dominion Day, Donald Creighton, Eugene Forsey, George Grant, Gerry T. Neal, John Farthing, John G. Diefenbaker, L. M. Montgomery, Mazo De La Roche, Peter V. Macdonald, Robertson Davies, Ron Dart, Stephen Leacock, W. L. Morton

New Day? No Thanks, I’ll Take the Old(er)!– Dominion Day

Posted on July 1, 2022 by CFIRC

Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

Friday, July 1, 2022

New Day? No Thanks, I’ll Take the Old(er)!– Dominion Day

Over the past couple of weeks there has been a great deal of talk here in Winnipeg about the announcement that today’s big party at the Forks would be called “New Day” instead of “Canada Day”, would be a whole bunch of pissing and moaning about wrongs real and imagined inflicted upon the Indians instead of a celebration of our country, and would not include the usual fireworks celebration. Interestingly, Sunday evening, while enjoying a coffee at Tim Horton’s and trying to read a chapter out of the book of Isaiah, I overheard snatches of conversation from a couple at a nearby table with regards to all of this. The man was boisterously objecting to all of these changes, especially the cancelling of the fireworks. The woman was defending the changes, toeing the progressive party line on the subject. For what it’s worth, the man was an Indian and the woman was lily white.

Among the more prominent of the local critics of these changes – I add the modifier “local” because it has attracted commentary from across the Dominion, including Toronto’s Anthony Furey and Edmonton’s Lorne Gunter – are Lloyd Axworthy and Jenny Motkaluk. The former, who from 1979 to 2000 was the MP for Winnipeg – Fort Garry then Winnipeg South Centre when the former was dissolved and the latter reconstituted in 1988, during which time he served as Minister for various portfolios in Liberal governments under Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien, and later became president of the University of Winnipeg, the furthest to the left of the city’s academic institutions, expressed his criticism in the pages of the Winnipeg Free Press, a Liberal party propaganda rag that likes to think of itself as a newspaper. The latter is one of the candidates for the office about to be vacated by Mayor Duckie whom she had previously but sadly unsuccessfully attempted to unseat in the 2018 mayoral election. Ryan Stelter responded to Motkaluk with a column that appeared in the Winnipeg Sun – the local neoconservative tabloid – in which he defended the decision by the powers that be at the Forks, their reasons for the change, and basically argued that while the biggest party in the city has been re-named and re-imagined this does not prevent anyone else from celebrating the holiday as they like.

While I suspect Stelter of disingenuity – his argument is technically correct but does not address the real problems with the thinking behind the changes likely because he doesn’t want to be seen as dissenting from that thinking – I shall, nevertheless, be doing as he suggests and celebrating the holiday the way I like. This means that like the crowd at the Forks, I will not be celebrating “Canada Day”. Unlike the crowd at the Forks, however, I shall not be celebrating the atrociously progressive “New Day” either – perhaps they should have called it “New DIE” from the appropriate acronym for Diversity, Inclusivity, Equity – but shall be celebrating, as I do every first of July, Dominion Day. This is Canada’s true national holiday and the first of July bore this name until the Liberals changed it in 1982. Since the Liberals did not do so honestly and constitutionally – only thirteen members, less than a quorum, were sitting at the time that the private member’s bill changing the name was rushed through all the readings without debate in less than five minutes, hence the Honourable Eugene Forsey’s description of this as “something very close to sneak-thievery” – I think that continuing to celebrate Dominion Day rather than Canada Day is appropriate. I am in good company in this. The great Canadian man of letters Robertson Davies called Dominion Day “splendid” and Canada Day “wet” in reference to its being “only one letter removed from the name of a soft drink”.

I will say this about Canada Day, however. Like Dominion Day it is a celebration of our country as a whole. Indeed, Dominion Day and Canada Day, are two different celebrations of Canada based on two different visions of what ought to celebrated about the country. I will elaborate on that momentarily. First I will point out the contrast. Attempts at a post-Canada Day holiday, as this New Day would appear to be, seem to be attempts at having a celebration on the country’s anniversary without celebrating the country at all but rather celebrating progressive ideals and the group identities of groups within Canada who are favoured by the left while allotting shame and dishonour to the country (and to groups within it who are not favoured by the left). Ironically, considering that the sort of people who think up this sort of thing are always going on about “inclusivity”, this is incredibly divisive. It is also insane.

Canada Day is a celebration of the Canada of the Liberal vision. That Canada is best described by the title of a 1935 history by John Wesley Dafoe, the Liberal Party promoter who edited the Winnipeg Free Press for the first half of the twentieth century, Canada: An American Nation. By deliberately omitting the word “North” Dafoe expressed his idea that Canada is essentially American – possessing the same culture and values as the United States, and on the same political trajectory historically, away from the British Empire and towards democratic republican nationalism, albeit pursuing that path through means other than war. Those who share this vision of Canada have historically regarded the Liberal Party as the guardians of Canada’s journey down this path or, as it has often been stated, “the natural ruling party of Canada”. This is what the great Canadian historian Donald Creighton derisively called the “Authorized Version”, the Liberal Interpretation of Canadian History that was, before the Cultural Marxist version in which the history of Canada, the United, States, and Western Civilization is treated as nothing but racism, sexism, and other such isms, permeated academe, authoritatively taught in Liberal-leaning history classrooms, which were most of them. What critics of the left-wing of the Liberal Party – the branch of the party most associated with the two Trudeaus and Jean Chretien – and particularly the neoconservatives who look for inspiration and ideas primarily if not solely to the American “conservative” movement, often fail to grasp is that this is the Liberal vision of Canada even when the party’s left-wing, which spouts the same sort of anti-American rhetoric as the American Cold War era New Left, is controlling the party, and perhaps especially so. The symbols associated with Canada Day, such as the flag introduced by Lester Pearson in 1965, like the name of the holiday itself, are symbols that point to Canada while saying nothing about her history and traditions, symbols that were introduced by Liberals to replace older ones that also pointed to Canada but did speak about her history and traditions. The historical events highlighted in this vision of Canada are events in which the Liberal Party led the country. In recent decades the main one of these was the repatriation of the British North America Act of 1867 in 1982 and the addition to it of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In repatriating the British North America Act, it was renamed the Constitution Act, 1867. Everything asserted a few sentences earlier about the symbols associated with Canada Day is true of this change as well and the new name reflects the American understanding of the word “constitution”, i.e., a piece of paper telling the government what to do, rather than the traditional British-Canadian understanding of the word as meaning the institutions of the state as they actually exist and operate in a living tradition that is largely unwritten. Similarly, it was the American Bill of Rights that the authors of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms had in mind when they added this to the repatriated BNA, although, many of us have been warning for years and as is painfully obvious after the medical tyranny of the last two and a half years, and especially the harsh fascist crackdown on those peacefully protesting against this tyranny in Ottawa earlier this year, the Charter simply does not provide the same level of protection as the American Bill. The Charter did not provide us with anything worth having that we did not already have by right of the Common Law and the long tradition of protected rights and freedoms associated with it including such highlights as the Magna Carta. Furthermore, it weakened the most important rights and freedoms mentioned in it – the fundamental freedoms of Section 2 and the legal rights of Sections 7 to 14, institutionalized the injustice of reverse de jure discrimination – Section 15 b), and provided no protection whatsoever to property rights which in the older tradition which both we and the Americans inherited occupy the spot where the Americans put “the pursuit of happiness” in one of the founding documents of their tradition as it branched off from the older. Perhaps the most significant single effect of the Charter was to transform our Supreme Court into an American-style activist Court which it had not been up unto that point. The American Supreme Court has been activist so long that now, when it has finally reversed one of its most notorious activist rulings – Roe v Wade – and returned the right to legislate protection for the lives of the unborn to the lawmaking assemblies from which it stole it in 1973, the American progressives whose causes have benefited from the vast majority of judicial activism have seen this as illegitimate judicial activism and have been behaving like extremely spoiled children who have finally received long-overdue discipline. The point, however, is that these changes, arguably the most Americanizing of any the Liberal Party has ever made, were introduced by a Liberal government when the party was controlled by its left-wing, despite that left-wing’s Communist-sympathizing anti-American rhetoric.

Dominion Day is a celebration of the Canada that was formally established as a country when the British North America Act came into effect on 1 July, 1867. The country was given the name Canada, which name, originally the Iroquois word for “village”, was mistaken by Jacques Cartier for the St. Lawrence region, then applied to the society of French settlers established there, then, after this French society and its territory were ceded to the British Crown by the French Crown after the Seven Years War, and the Americans seceded from the British Crown to establish their Modern, liberal, republic, became the name of two provinces of the British Empire, one French Catholic and the other English Protestant, located in this territory, the latter populated by the Loyalists who had fled persecution in the American republic. These provinces were united into one in 1841, which proved almost immediately to be a mistake, and the search for a solution to the problems this fusion generated was one of the main reasons for Confederation in which the two provinces were separated once again, but made part of a larger federation of British North American provinces that was given the name common to both. Dominion was the title the Fathers of Confederation gave the country that would bear the name country. The title of a country, as distinct from its name, is supposed to tell you what kind of a country it is, that is to say, the nature of the constitution of the state. If a country has “People’s Republic” as its title, for example, that tells us that it is a Communist, totalitarian, hellhole. The “Dominion” in Canada’s title tells us that she is a parliamentary monarchy, a kingdom or realm under the reign of the monarch we share with the United Kingdom, governed by her own Parliament. When the Liberals were waging war against the title “Dominion” from the 1960s to the 1980s, they maintained that it was a synonym for “colony” and was imposed upon Canada from London in the nineteenth century, but none of that was true. The most charitable interpretation of the Liberals making these claims is that they were ignorant of history, an interpretation that would seem to be supported by the Honourable Eugene Forsey’s account, in his memoirs, of his attempts to educate his Liberal colleagues in the Senate about these things during this period, although a less charitable interpretation might be more appropriate for the top leaders of the party. The reality is that the Fathers of Confederation had “Kingdom of Canada” as their first choice, were advised by London to pick something less provocative to our neighbours to the South, and chose “Dominion” as a synonym for “Kingdom” from Psalm 72:8.

Dominion Day, as a celebration of this Canada, is a celebration of a vision of Canada that is pretty much the opposite of the Liberal vision of Canada, and an interpretation of her history that is the opposite of the “Authorized Version”. To call it the Conservative vision and interpretation of Canada would be very misleading, I am afraid, because, those who currently use the moniker Conservative are generally light years removed from Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George-Étienne Cartier Whatever you want to call it, however, it is the truer vision and interpretation of Canada. The Confederation Project was not an attempt to do what the Americans had done in 1776 albeit without bloodshed. It was an attempt to do the opposite of what the Americans had done – to take the provinces of the British Empire in North America, and build out of them a new country without severing ties with the United Kingdom and the Empire, using the Westminster Parliament as its model rather than devising a new constitution from scratch. For the Fathers of Confederation in 1864 to 1867, as with the English and French Canadians who fought alongside the British Imperial army and its Indian allies from 1812 to 1815, and the ancestors of the same during the American Revolution four decades earlier, the threat to their freedom came from the American Republic, with its “Manifest Destiny”, cloaking its dreams of conquest in the rhetoric of “liberation”. The British Crown and Empire were not tyrannical forces from which the Canadians needed to be “liberated” (1) but the guardian forces that protected Canadian freedom from American conquest. The threat of American conquest did not just magically go away on 1 July, 1867. The efforts of Sir John’s government in the decades that followed, to bring the rest of British North America into Confederation, to settle the prairies, and to build the transcontinental railroad that would unite the country economically, were all carried out with the threat of a United States hoping and wishing for him to fail so that they might swoop in and gobble up Canada looming over head. Aiding and abetting the would-be American conquerors were their fifth column in Canada, the Liberals. In Sir John’s last Dominion election, held in March 1891 only a couple of months prior to the stroke that incapacitated him shortly before his death, he faced a Liberal opponent, Sir Wilfred Laurier, who campaigned on a platform of “unrestricted reciprocity”, which is more commonly called “free trade”, with the United States. Sir John called this treason, pointing out that free trade would create an economic union that would be the wedge in the door for cultural and political union with the United Sates. That very year Liberal intellectual Goldwin Smith published a book, Canada and the Canada Question, that argued that Confederation was a mistake, that economics is everything, that trade in North America is naturally north-south rather than east-west – this was effectively rebutted by Harold Innis in The Fur Trade in Canada (1930) and Donald Creighton in The Commercial Empire of the St. Lawrence (1937) – and that union with the United States was both desirable and inevitable. Sir John won another majority government in his last Dominion election by vigorously opposing all of this.

Sir John’s victory over Laurier in 1891 demonstrated that his vision of Canada, rather than the Liberal vision, was shared not just by the other Fathers of Confederation but by most Canadians. That this remained true well into the Twentieth Century was evident in how the Liberals were the most likely to lose elections in which they most stressed the free trade plank of their platform and in the Loyalist spirit demonstrated by the Canadians who rallied to the call of King, Country, and Empire in two World Wars. Even the Grit Prime Minister during the Second World War, who had mocked the Imperial war effort during the First World War, who was the very embodiment of the Liberal continentalist free trader, and who was actually an admirer of the dictator who led the other side – following his brief interview with Hitler in 1937, Mackenzie King wrote a gushing entry about him in his diary, in which he described the German tyrant in almost Messianic terms, comparing him to Joan of Arc, and employing language that would have sounded just as creepy had Hitler turned out to be the man of peace he thought him to be – had enough of that spirit to do his duty and lead Canada into the war alongside Britain and the rest of the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, one of the consequences of that conflict was that the United States became the leading power in Western Civilization and immediately began to reshape the West into its own image. To make matters worse around this same time mass communications technology, especially the television, became ubiquitous both a) facilitating the permeation of English Canadian culture with the mass pop culture produced in the culture factories of Los Angeles, and b) greatly increasing the influence of the newsmedia, which had been heavily slanted towards the Liberals since even before Confederation when George Brown edited the Globe, which evolved into today’s Globe and Mail. These are among the foremost of the factors which produced the shift in popular thinking away from the truer, founding, vision of Canada celebrated in Dominion Day to the Liberal vision celebrated in Canada Day. They are also among the factors that led George Grant, Canada’s greatest philosopher, traditionalist, and critic of technology, to pen his jeremiad for our country, Lament for a Nation, in 1965.

If the exponential growth in media power due to the development of mass communications technology and the post-World War II Americanization of Western Civilization as a whole are responsible for the shift in popular thought to the Liberal vision, how then do we explain this subsequent shift to the new, “woke” Left view, in which Canada, and everything that traditional Canadians celebrated about her in Dominion Day and Liberals in Canada Day, are regarded as cause for weeping and gnashing of teeth rather than celebration?

While the media certainly had a role in this as well – they were the ones, last year, remember, who, when various Indian bands began announcing that they had found ground disturbances – and this is all that they have found, to this date – on the grounds of former residential schools or in unmarked sections of cemeteries, irresponsibly reported this as “proof” of a conspiracy theory about the residential schools having been death camps where priests murdered kids by the thousands – it is our educational system that must bear the blame for the fact that so many people were stupid and ignorant enough to believe this stercus tauri. It has been sixty-nine years since Hilda Neatby wrote and published So Little for the Mind: An Indictment of Canadian Education in which she lambasted the education bureaucrats who in most if not all Canadian provinces had decided in the decade or so prior to her writing to impose the educational “reforms” proposed by wacko, environmentalist (in the sense of taking the nurture side in the nature/nurture debate rather than the sense of being a tree-hugging, save-the-planet, do-gooder, although he may have been that too), atheist, secular humanist, Yankee philosopher John Dewey upon Canadian public schools. This meant out with a curriculum focused on giving children facts to learn, expecting them to learn them, and acquainting them with the literary canon of the Great Conversation so that by exposing them to the Swiftian “sweetness and light” of Matthew Arnold’s “best which has been thought and said” they might be inspired to rise above their natural barbarism or philistinism and learn to think and ask questions and strive for the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. It meant in with a curriculum that was “child-centred”, which in practice meant dumbed down so as to minimize or eliminate content of which the child cannot immediately recognize its pragmatic utility to himself, although Dewey and his followers, who were decades ahead of everyone else in terms of solipsistic, narcissistic, psycho-babble, dressed it up in terms of helping the child maximize his potential. Those sympathetic to the methods of Dewey et al. thought of these reforms as a positive shift from a passive education in which the teacher gives the student the content to be learned and the student receives it to an active education in which the student is trained to learn by self-discovery. Neatby recognized these methods for what they really were – the means of transforming schools from institutions that provide their students with the intellectual tools necessary to live in control of their own lives as free people into institutions that train people to be docile, unquestioning, members of a more planned, more controlled, and more collectivist sort of society. Her warnings largely went ignored, although she was commemorated with a stamp twenty-two years ago. Even though the environmentalist presuppositions underlying Dewey’s system have been thoroughly debunked in the intervening decades, his theories survive as the dominant educational philosophy, albeit having been periodically translated into the latest forms of newspeak. Meanwhile university level academics have mostly stopped criticizing the way the schools under the new system are failing to prepare students for a university education, but have instead accommodated the universities to the situation by transforming them into indoctrination centres in which their unquestioning and docile but also navel-gazingly narcissistic “student” bodies have their heads stuffed with every conceivable form of left-wing group identity politics – there are entire divisions of universities now dedicated to specific forms of this – and the deranged post-Marxist crackpot left-wing theories – intersectionality, Critical Theory (Race and otherwise), etc. – that support them. The subversion and perversion of our educational system just described is the reason so many were quick to unthinkingly and unquestioningly accept the media’s irresponsible claims that the discovery of soil disturbances by ground-penetrating radar constitutes proof of the conspiracy theory that government-funded, church-operated, schools were murdering their students in some giant plot involving the highest officials of church, state, and a host of other institutions, that a defrocked United Church minister (2) pulled out of his rear end decades ago. It is the reason so many were willing to commit the chronological snobbery of judging ex post facto our country’s past leaders by the left-wing standards of today’s progressives, the injustice of accepting a condemnation of our country in which only the accuser has been allowed to be heard and the defence has been denied the right of cross-examination and of making a defence by the mob shouting “disrespect” and “denial” every time anyone raised a question or pointed out contra-narrative facts, and the impiety of thinking the worst of the generations that went before us. Note how the words “colonialism” and “imperialism” are constantly on the lips of such people, being used negatively in precisely the manner described by Robert Conquest in Reflections on a Ravaged Century in which he concluded that this usage, so different from how these terms are used by real historians, has reduced these words to “mind-blockers and thought-extinguishers”. This bespeaks the failure of the educational system.

So no, I will not be participating in any “New Day” that is the product of what passes for thinking in the minds of those whose acceptance of the left-wing narrative that our country is something to be mourned rather than celebrated testifies to the ruin of our educational system. Nor, as an unreconstructed old Tory, will I be celebrating the Liberal vision for our country on “Canada Day”. I shall once again raise my glass – or rather cup of coffee – to Sir John A. Macdonald and celebrate Canada’s true holiday, Dominion Day. — Gerry T. Neal

Happy Dominion Day!

God Save the Queen!

(1) For all of Jefferson’s Lockean rhetoric about natural law, unalienable rights, and the consent of the governed his 1776 accusations of “absolute tyranny” against George III and Parliament were nonsensical propaganda of the most risible sort, considering that the British government was one of the least intrusive governments in the world both at that time and in all of history up to that point.

(2) This is actually, in a twisted way, rather impressive. It is far easier to be ordained in the United Church of Canada than to be defrocked.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: Dominion Day, Donald Creighton, Eugene Forsey, George Grant, Gerry T. NealAristotle, Hilda Neatby, Jenny Motkaluk, John Dewey, John Wesley Dafoe, Lloyd Axworthy, Robert Conquest, Robertson Davies, Ryan Stelter, Sir John A. Macdonald

Dominion Day Dolour

Posted on July 5, 2020 by CFIRC

Throne, Altar, Liberty

Gerry T. Neal

The Canadian Red Ensign

Wednesday, July 1, 2020

Dominion Day Dolour

It has been my custom for Dominion Day over the last few years, to write either sketches about specific individuals who exemplified the Canada of Confederation and her traditions or jeremiads lamenting the present state of the Dominion. I had not realized, until I checked the last six years, that this has followed an alternating pattern, in which this would be a year for a jeremiad. This suits me as the next individual I had on deck for a sketch was the great Canadian historian Donald Creighton, and while I read Donald Wright’s biography of him as recently as last year – I much prefer the chapter on him in Charles Taylor’s Radical Tories, since Wright’s political correctness infuriates me as much as it would have his subject – I would need more time than I had available to re-read Creighton’s own books in order to do him justice. So a jeremiad it is.

There is plenty for someone from my point of view to lament. There have been two traditions of thought that have borne the rather inaccurate label “conservative” in Canada. There is the old Tory tradition of Loyalism and royalism, which is monarchist rather than republican, holds the Westminster system of Parliament to be the best form of government ever to evolve on the face of the earth, dissents from the narrative of the rebellion of 1776 and is suspicious of the United States, utterly rejects socialism without fully embracing capitalism, and is socially, morally, and culturally traditionalist. Then there is neo-conservatism, which is very pro-American, holds to the basic political and economic views of nineteenth century liberalism, and regards anything from outside eighteenth to nineteenth century liberalism which has been traditionally associated with conservatism as dispensable. While the extent to which the official Conservative Party has ever really stood for either of these traditions is questionable, it was associated with the first until 1967 and the latter from about 1983 on, especially after the merger with what began as the Reform Party. I have belonged to the first tradition from the moment political thoughts first formed in my head, and am very much a representative of its right wing. Most other surviving members – David Warren is a very notable exception –speak for its left wing. In other words, I speak for a point of view, which the Liberal Party, egged on by the further left parties, and aided and abetted by the Conservatives, has striven to make as unwelcome as possible in Canada.

Earlier this year, our provincial governments, with the full backing and support of Ottawa, essentially eliminated what was left of our most basic freedoms. These freedoms are part of the Common Law tradition which we inherited when we became the Dominion of Canada on this date in 1867. They are not something which Pierre Trudeau gave us in 1982, despite the fact that our lying schoolteachers and our lying newsmedia commentators, most of whom sold their souls to the Liberal Party and its true leader in hell at the beginning of their careers, have been instilling that impression among the younger generations ever since that year. Although the Charter did not give us those freedoms, it does name four of them in its second section. The freedom of conscience and religion is the first named. The third and fourth named are freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. There is no freedom of conscience and religion when the provincial government forbids us from going to Church for four months. There is no freedom of peaceful assembly when the same government tells us we cannot gather in groups larger than five or ten or whatever number. There is no freedom of association if the government tells us we must be six feet apart from each other in public at all times. The provincial governments got away with this totalitarian power grab with the help of a media-generated panic over the spread of a virus with a low fatality rate that produces mild to no symptoms in the vast majority of those who contract it, information which has been available all along to anybody willing to check out the facts.

In the meantime, the Liberal Party which was reduced to a minority government in last year’s Dominion election, took full advantage of this situation to seek, in an underhanded attack on the Magna Carta and the foundational principles of Parliament, unlimited tax and spend powers, and to prevent Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition from doing their job of holding the government accountable in Parliament.

Then, about a month ago, when Marxist organizations in the United States found a pretext for launching a race war against white people, the Prime Minister, despite his own hands being far from clean when it comes to matters concerning race as we discovered in the election campaign last year, jumped on board the bandwagon. Even though the public health restrictions at whatever stage of easing they were at from province to province remained in effect for everybody else, they were lifted completely for the anti-white hate rallies that were organized in Canada’s major cities. The Prime Minister, who has never given the slightest indication of sincere contrition over his many personal failings, but who is always ready to give an apology on behalf of the entire country to whatever designated victim group happens to feel the most offended at any given moment, showed up for a photo op of himself “taking the knee” in a gesture of false humility at the rally in Ottawa. A few days later on his syndicated morning television show he berated our country over its supposed “systemic racism.” This was the cue for everyone else to ritually acknowledge this systemic racism, whether they understood the concept or, more likely, did not, and for the “woke” to start “cancelling” anybody who failed to participate in this now mandatory ritual.

This requirement that everybody accept this ridiculous narrative, taken from the neo-Marxist Critical Theory, is, of course, an assault on yet another of our basic freedoms. As with the others, this too is a freedom from the Common Law tradition which is named in the second section of the Charter, where it is called the “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.” If all Canadians are now required to confess the neo-Marxist narrative that our country is systemically racist, upon threat of being cancelled if we dissent, then it is a joke to say that we have freedom of thought, belief, opinion or expression. If the Crown broadcaster and all of the other news stations and newspapers that have been subsidized by this government are pushing this same narrative, while the government has been applying pressure to big tech social media companies to censor dissent, then there is no “freedom of the press and other media of communication.” The assault on this basic freedom has been going on since the premiership of the first Trudeau. It has been carried out in the name of combatting prejudice and promoting diversity, even though the most essential kind of diversity for a free country is the diversity of thought that is under attack.

All of Western Civilization is now threatened by these neo-Maoists who wish to raze history to the ground and bring us to Year Zero. They have the support of most of the mainstream media, the corporate world, academia, celebrities and a wide assortment of elected officials, civil servants and even the police forces they wish to see “defunded”. In Canada, they have demanded that the prestigious McGill University disown its founder and namesake. Worse, they are demanding that our country disavow the leading Father of Confederation and our first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. Hilariously, they managed to get a newspaper or two to put trigger-warning labels on the flag. The reason this is so funny is because the flag in question is not the traditional, historical, flag of Canada, the Red Ensign, but rather the bland Maple Leaf which the Communist traitor, Lester Pearson chose to replace it with in 1965 precisely because it said nothing about Canada’s history, heritage, and legacy. Indeed, the Liberal Party’s assault on the traditional symbols of the Canada of Confederation during the premierships of Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau, starting with the old flag and ending with Dominion Day, could pretty much be said to have been the first wave to which the present wave of neo-Maoist, Year Zeroism is the second.

The Liberal Party rejected our country’s traditional symbols and was determined to replace them with ones bearing its own stamp. Today’s neo-Maoists demand a wholesale repudiation of our country’s founding and history. Symbols and history are important. Almost a century ago, the Mackenzie King Liberals attacked the Crown’s legitimate and necessary right to refuse an improper dissolution request (see Eugene Forsey, The Royal Power of Dissolution of Parliament, 1943). This undermined Parliament’s right to hold the Prime Minister accountable and set the stage for Prime Ministerial dictatorship (see John Farthing, Freedom Wears a Crown, 1957). This year, we have seen the largest assault on Parliamentary prerogative since then, and on the part of a minority Liberal government to boot, while all the provincial governments ran roughshod over our most basic Common Law rights and freedoms. If we had valued our traditional symbols and our history more, we would not have so willingly acquiesced in this.

While I weep for my country, I wish you all a Happy Dominion Day!

God Save the Queen!
Posted by

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: Charles Taylor, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Common Law, David Warren, Dominion Day, Donald Creighton, Donald Wright, Eugene Forsey, John Farthing, Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau, Sir John A. Macdonald

Canada Day Is Now a Day to Inflict White Guilt

Posted on July 16, 2017 by CFIRC

Canada Day Is Now a Day to Inflict White Guilt

by Thomas Jones

July 1st of this year marked the 150th anniversary of the Canadian confederation as everyone is well aware at this point. The public and private spheres both put a great deal of time promoting this special occasion although quite frankly I felt rather underwhelmed by it all. It should have been something to instill great feelings of patriotism and celebration, but given all that has happened to Canada in the last 50 years, not to mention the current ‘we are the world’ style multicult propaganda being pushed, I must say I was not feeling like celebrating. Evidently I was not the only one, but others had far different reasons.

Ever since Idle No More and the largely positive coverage of that movement by the press, the Amerindian lobby has grown considerably. In the weeks and months leading up to Dominion Day there was a rise in open protesting of Canada Day by Amerindians who see it as a day of oppression as opposed to celebration. They never have and never will identify with the Canadian project because it was not one they were ever part of.

On July 1st itself there were a number of protests throughout the country, including Toronto and Regina. It would seem that in the aftermath of Idle No More a number of smaller groups have arisen, although how significant they truly are is rather suspect at this point. To what extent are they being hyped up by the media? Canada’s so-called policy of reconciliation has emboldened Amerindian groups to call for reclaiming whole cities and even Parliament Hillas their ‘unceded territory.’ Of course many of the people involved in these movements, protests et al., are at best only of partial Amerindian descent. Many Whites can be seen identifying with these ultimately anti-White groups thanks to years of indoctrination in public education, universities and the media.

Despite only being 4% of the population (and that includes Metis), ‘aboriginal’ interests have been successfully pushed in recent years with the most obvious example being the decision by the Trudeau government to accept in full the TRC narrative on the residential schools. As Lynn Beyek found out recently, to point out that these were not genocidal camps and that many prospered because of their time in such institutions, is not something you can do publicly. We are not only to believe they were a holocaust but that intergenerational suffering is the reason for the violence Amerindians inflict upon each other. And it doesn’t just stop at residential schools or land issues, to in anyway critique or make light of the Amerindian lobby is a huge moral crime in today’s Canada, even leftist Jews like Johnathan Kay are not exempt from attacks for failing to tow the line.

Given how corrupt and violent Amerindian communities are it won’t be long until residential schools 2.0 spring up out of necessity. No one seems willing to just let them live by themselves because they know that would just lead to self-destruction and sadly we feel like we owe them.

Every Occidental country now needs a genocide narrative as a founding myth in order to promote the dispossession of Whites and neoliberal globalism

Every Occidental country now needs a genocide narrative as a founding myth in order to promote the dispossession of Whites and neoliberal globalism. For Canada residential schools fit nicely, well once you tweak history a little bit. The Amerindians have now like the new left been coopted by these forces, which are more than willing to accept and promote their social concerns so long as their ultimate economic goals are achieved. Amerindians, then, are complete tools. Hatred for Whites is so strong that they are willing to openly and vociferously promote greater immigration because they are more concerned with attacking Euro-Canadians than protecting their own people. Open immigration will not and does not help Amerindians, Inuit or Metis. In fact, they may be negatively impacted by it even more than the majority population.

Of course, in reality the true history of the colonization of Canada is one of British liberalism. The British could have promoted the annihilation of Amerindians or of their being bred out of existence, as occurred elsewhere, but instead they promoted a policy of treaty signing, of trying to find a way of accommodating these people and moreover, of trying to uplift them. The residential school system was hardly perfect but its purpose was to prepare Amerindian children for a changing world and also to protect them from their own families who were mistreating them. Something which still goes on to this day, as does the mistreatment of Amerindian women by their own menfolk. Unlike in other parts of the Americas there were no Indian wars in Canada; the only conflict that comes close is the Metis revolts but these were a series of skirmishes. Though I suspect the policy in Canada would have been much the same even if there had been wars, given the liberal policy shown towards the Maori of New Zealand who did fight long, protracted conflicts with the British.

As this recent story illustrates, Amerindians show again how much they really don’t care about indigenous-hood and are really just tools of the liberal elite. Anything to stick it to the White man. Euro-Canadians have greater claim to being indigenous than recent arrivals from Syria. Funny how it’s ok for Syrians and other non-Whites to come and maintain their cultures on ‘native land’ but ours are condemned. And certainly Whites are indigenous to Europe (not only have they always been there but they formed the modern states that exist there so there can be no claims of terra nullius), but Amerindian lobby doesn’t come out against the replacement of Germans, Swedes and other Europeans in their native homes.

Many second and third generation immigrants from India and elsewhere have also bought into the anti-White narrative and many seemingly promote Amerindian interests. But, I wonder, how committed these people truly are to the Amerindians? Might be fun to see what happens if and when Canada becomes ‘majority minority’ and conflicts arise between Asiatic groups and the Amerindians, because I believe ultimately, the Chinese, Punjabis, et al. will put themselves first. Amerindians need Euro-Canadians because of their stupid White guilt complex.

Not all Euro-Canadians, however, are willing to sit back and accept the new manufactured narratives about Amerindians. Recently, in Halifax a small group peacefully counter protested an Amerindian one held in front of a statue of Edward Cornwallis, who is attacked for having called for reprisals against Mikmaq. (They leave out, of course, that Mikmaq were slaughtering Whites and his actions were a response to their cruelty.) If these incidences, as peaceful, calm and rather mundane as they are, continue then we could see end of feeling of White goodwill to Amerindians. They are working hard to indoctrinate the young as Amerindian lobby and anti-White groups more generally admit. Note how they falsely state race is simply about color and refuse to ask deeper questions as to why Amerindians may not be as successful as Whites and indeed Asians. If White privilege is real, then the question we should all ask is why is it a bad thing for Whites to be successful? Especially as it only seems to be in White countries.

Many are obviously in favour of Canada day but for how much longer? Will the current ‘we are the world’ style narrative give way to the ‘evil genocide’ one? More likely, the two will exist in tandem as the plan is not so much to be consistent but to use any and all narratives so long as they erode any sense of pride and identity in Euro-Canadians for themselves or their ancestors.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: Canada Day, Dominion Day, Indians, Lynn Beyek, white guilt

Canada’s 150th Dominion Day

Posted on July 1, 2017 by CFIRC

Canada’s 150th Dominion Day

https://youtu.be/RDo6BDfSynI

Paul Fromm is the Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) since 1983, at: http://cafe.nfshost.com/.Paul is also the Director of the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee at: http://canadafirst.nfshost.com/

…

Paul Fromm is the Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) since 1983, at: http://cafe.nfshost.com/. Paul is also the Director of the Canada…

YOUTUBE.COM

Paul Fromm is the Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) since 1983, at: http://cafe.nfshost.com/.

Paul is also the Director of the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee at: http://canadafirst.nfshost.com/

Winner of the George Orwell Free Speech Award, 1994.

Co-host of “The Trump Phenomenon” Radio Show on RBN (week nights, 9:00 p.m. EST)

You can join Paul’s email list by contacting him at paul@paulfromm.com .

His playlist of videos on this channel is: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list…

I am Brian Ruhe. My website is: http://www.brianruhe.ca . Join me on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/BrianRuhe . If you love this content, love that it’s free for everyone, please consider doing some volunteer work on your home computer or making a donation. In April 2017 YouTube stopped the monitization of almost all of my videos.

If you enjoyed this video please click “Like”, Subscribe and Share! Please promote my channel and videos on your own social media connections and email lists to spread the message!

If you would like assist me by making a single donation today you can PayPal me through https://www.paypal.com and use my email address brian@brianruhe.ca . All donations are greatfully appreciated! Thank you!! Thank you!! Thank you!!

My 2010 book is “A SHORT WALK ON AN ANCIENT PATH – A Buddhist Exploration of Meditation, Karma and Rebirth”, available in book or ebook form at Amazon.com at:

http://www.amazon.com/Short-Walk-Anci……

My first book from 1999, is “Freeing the Buddha,” with chapter 13, Adolf Hitler and Tibetan Buddhism, also at Amazon at:

https://www.amazon.com/Freeing-Buddha…

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: Dominion Day, Europewan founder/settler people, Paul Fromm

The Meaning & History of Dominion Day

Posted on July 6, 2016 by CFIRC

The Meaning & History of Dominion Day
4:35

The Meaning and History of Dominion Day

Paul Fromm from the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee talks about why our old Canadian flag was better and more meaningful than our current flag.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhW9a7ebg0

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: Dominion Day, European founding/settler people, Lester Pearson, Paul Fromm, Red Ensign

HAPPY DOMINION DAY

Posted on July 1, 2016 by CFIRC

HAPPY DOMINION DAY

Dear Canada Firster:

Happy Dominion Day.

Isn’t it Canada Day, you might ask? Well, as part of the social re-engineering of our country, Parliament did proclaim July 1 – Canada’s national founding date – as Canada Day. This was part of Pierre Trudeau’s revolutionary mischief as his immigration and multiculturalism policies sought to remake the European country of our founding into a Third World mix-up. He set in place policies – loyally followed by Tory Brian Mulroney AND Stephen Harper and Liberals Jean Chretien and Paul Martin and now Justin Trudeau– which will bring about the replacement and gradual ethnic cleansing of the European founder-settler people of this country.

Dominion Day, first proclaimed a holiday in 1879 by Governor General Lord Monck highlighted a term in Canada’s motto “a mari usque ad mare” – a line from the Psalms 72:8: “Dominion from sea unto sea.”

The sentiment is enthusiastic and positive, suggesting the coming of age and sovereignty of a new nation. The European founder/settlers – the British, the French, the Germans, the UELs from the U.S., the Germans, the Russians, the Icelanders, the Ukrainians and others – were developing, expanding and claiming this land, taking Dominion (power and control) from sea to sea.

This is a dynamic vision of Canada, one we shall not abandon. This is OUR Canada, the real Canada.

.

Paul Fromm
Director
Canada First

Canada Day: A Celebration of the Destruction of Our British Heritage

by Thomas Jones

On July 1st 1867 the Dominion of Canada was created as per the British North America Act of 1867. The holiday of Dominion Day was changed to Canada Day thanks to the machinations of anti-British Liberal politicians working without public consent. The name Canada day doesn’t need to be negative and surely we patriots could make fine use of it but sadly that is not why the name was changed. It was done so to loosen ties to our British past.

As with the national days of our kindred in the United States, Australia and New Zealand, here in Canada our national day is not looked upon so kindly by a small but vocal minority of “progressives.” All of these countries are depicted now as “colonial states” which committed genocide against peaceful aboriginal groups in the name of White supremacy and imperialism. Furthermore they then welcome Chinese well-off hustlers to flood in and usurp jobs from native White workers. Thanks to the ruling elites in the political arena, the universities and, of course, the media, this immensely negative image has taking hold over the popular imagination. I think it is fair to say that many Canadians have not fallen for this propaganda, the simple anti-national day narrative, but with every year it seems as if we have to be more and more critical of our ancestors and the countries they created.

On July 1st 2013 feminist Judy Rebick spoke out against Canada day for the exact reasons laid out above. Apparently it is somehow racist for Canadians to celebrate their ancestry and country but not racist for Idle No More to attack Canada. She sounds like an internationalist socialist who has no time for nationalism, even when left-wing, but then supports Amerindian nationalist movements?

The findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) have only added fuel to the fire. Influenced by their very political report and the views of individuals like Rebick, Killa Atencio wrote in 2015 that she wouldn’t celebrate Canada day because of what TRC’s views and because as of yet there is not inquiry into the case of missing aboriginal women . Being against Canada because of a there has been no commission on missing women is patently stupid, as that is something that the government, if anything, should be faulted with, not the very existence of Canada. Plus the commission will not find anything that we don’t know already.

According to the National Post, 70% of Canadians agree with the TRC that schools were a form of cultural genocide, and that a national inquiry is needed and more aboriginal studies in classrooms; though, as I said before, there is already way too much on this whole topic. If one looks through the comments of the National Post article one will see that already I have been proven correct; many are calling what happened genocide without the prefix cultural. This means that the Canadian nation is sympathetic to the non-White aboriginal ones; no need for anti-White hatred.

I think it is fair to say that most on the left disagree with Rebick and Atencio that Canada day should not be celebrated. However they don’t see it as a day to celebrate our European heritage and traditions. Many Canadians views are similar to those of Jessica Barrett who, the day before this last year’s Canada day, wrote about the TRC’s findings and of how terrible it was that aboriginals and Whites aren’t more connected. “Progressive” minded people like Barrett like to call themselves “allies” and do their best to connect LGBTQ and women to racial and religious minorities to form a broad grievance coalition with no love for the Western tradition or Europeans. For them Canada is not European and its European heritage is of no importance. Their “progressive” values are what are truly important. Any nationalism they are willing to promote is a civic one with no basis in ethnie or deep cultural traditions.

Canada Day: Celebrating the Future Faces of Canada!

I don’t know if Jessica celebrates Canada day or not, but no doubt her views resonate with a large number of Canadians. Liberals certainly consider themselves to be “allies” of marginalized groups and they would certainly make a big deal about this so as to signal to each other how accepting and tolerant they are. And they would certainly agree with her that the head tax and Komagata Maru incidents were terrible crimes against humanity instead of being part of a wider desire to protect workers and heritage. Andrew Woodbury does not attack Canada day but he does state that the national day “is one of discrimination, xenophobia, and a not-so-removed extension from Anglo, white-speak Great Britain.”.

Apparently it was evil and wrong of Britons to create a country almost exclusively inhabited by their kith and kin and then celebrate that fact. As with Barrett, Woodbury notes the refusal to open our borders to mass Chinese immigration in the 19th century as evidence of some horrible human rights violation. The article also has a seemingly compulsory attack on Stephen Harper despite the fact his government is very supportive of non-White immigration and multiculturalism. He is not the crusader for White rights the left imagines him to be.

The Huffington post recently released their top 13 favourite quotes about Canadafrom celebrities and other prominent figures. We can see from these quotes just how deracinated Canada has become, how it is viewed, to quote Trudeau, as a “post national” state which stands for whatever trends are in vogue. A few aren’t cringe worthy but a great many of them are. Here are but a few examples,

“This [Canada] is a place where you can be who you want to be and love who you want to love.” -Shay Mitchell

“Canada has always been there to help people who need it.” -Justin Trudeau (no doubt this is another way of saying we need more refugees and other migrants; come on don’t be a bigot this is what I say Canada is all about!)

“For over a century, people have been coming here [Ontario] from every part of the world to make a better life for themselves and their families. As they have pursued their dreams, they have enriched this province, and our country. Now, all of these diverse peoples live together in harmony.” -Michelle Jean

“Canada is the homeland of equality, justice and tolerance.” -Kim Campbell

“As a Canadian and a member of the LGBTQ+ community, I know that I can use my voice to speak out against hatred, racism and homophobia, and that my voice will be heard.” – Kirk DeMatas (never heard of him but apparently he is a poet. Evidently he is really edgy and brave saying such things! What rebel; what a hero)

In previous years Huffington Post has written about “great forgotten Canadians” most of whom are former slaves, feminists, gay activists, Chinese activists and the like. For the majority of the left and much of the so-called right, Canada day is the time to celebrate anything and everything but the European founders. It is a time to celebrate whatever inane sexual causes they have taken up and the vague concept of ‘equality.’

The left’s job will never be done because they fail to note that reason people stick with their own kind is because that is what is normal and natural. Moreover multicultural societies are more likely to be segregated. Nor do they care to tackle ethnocentrism amongst non-Whites. Clearly such people hate European countries such as Canada.

“Move over Whitey: Leftists told us we are the Progressive Ones!”

The “progressive” cause is taken up by ageing boomers stuck in the past and impressionable young people who don’t know any better. In my experience women are the most likely to fall for such nonsense; sad how the left has been able to manipulate the caring nature of women.

For this growing segment of the population, Canadians and Canada are meant to be bland, plastic and whatever the liberal elite wishes them to be. Dominion Day became Canada day so as to downplay our British connections and now thanks to left-wing “progressivism” our national day is not meant to reflect our Western heritage in any way shape or form. It seems Canadians (and Australians, Americans and other Europeans) are only meant to look at the past with guilt and shame. We can’t even have one day of the year to celebrate our beginnings. That is until more people wake up and say “enough is enough!” to the narrative being imposed upon them, which recent events in Europe and America seem to suggest.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: Dominion Day

Canada First Immigration Reform Committee

Tag Archives: Dominion Day

The Dominion of Canada – An Annotated Bibliography

Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

Monday, July 1, 2024

The Dominion of Canada – An Annotated Bibliography

New Day? No Thanks, I’ll Take the Old(er)!– Dominion Day

Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

Friday, July 1, 2022

New Day? No Thanks, I’ll Take the Old(er)!– Dominion Day

Dominion Day Dolour

Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

Wednesday, July 1, 2020

Dominion Day Dolour

Canada Day Is Now a Day to Inflict White Guilt

Canada Day Is Now a Day to Inflict White Guilt

Canada’s 150th Dominion Day

The Meaning & History of Dominion Day

The Meaning & History of Dominion Day
4:35

HAPPY DOMINION DAY

Search Canada First

Pages

Recent Posts

Archives

Meta

Tag Archives: Dominion Day

The Canadian Red Ensign

Monday, July 1, 2024

The Dominion of Canada – An Annotated Bibliography

The Canadian Red Ensign

Friday, July 1, 2022

New Day? No Thanks, I’ll Take the Old(er)!– Dominion Day

The Canadian Red Ensign

Wednesday, July 1, 2020

Dominion Day Dolour

Canada Day Is Now a Day to Inflict White Guilt

The Meaning & History of Dominion Day 4:35

Search Canada First

Pages

Recent Posts

Archives

Meta

The Meaning & History of Dominion Day
4:35