Tag Archives: Justin Trudeau

Humility and Hubris

Posted on by

Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Wednesday, January 15, 2025

Humility and Hubris

Canada is a Commonwealth Realm, a country within the British Commonwealth of Nations which governs herself through her own Parliament but which shares a reigning monarch with the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms.  Progressives, especially of the woke, “anti-colonial”, “anti-imperial” type, don’t like this and periodically call for us to “severe our ties to the monarchy.”  This expression demonstrates just how little they understand our country.  We don’t have “ties” to the monarchy as if it were something external that can be lopped off.  It is integral to our constitution and for that matter to our history.

When our current king was crowned in Westminster Abbey on 6 May, 2023 he was greeted by a young lad of His Majesty’s Chapel Royal who welcomed him “in the name of the King of kings.”  To this, His Majesty replied “In His name and after His example I come not to be served but to serve.”  This was an addition to the coronation service requested by His Majesty himself although it expresses the attitude of humility appropriate to the tradition of the king coming to Church to be crowned by priestly representatives of the King of kings.

What a contrast between this attitude of humility on the part of the man and appropriate to the office he fills with the insufferable arrogance that has been characteristic of his Canadian prime minister for the last decade.  Thankfully, that prime minister will soon be history.  On Epiphany he announced his upcoming resignation, to take effect after the Liberal Party has chosen its new leader which is set to take place on 9 March.  Unfortunately, the joy of hearing that he is finally stepping down, nine years after he should have resigned, has been dampened by the noise coming from south of the border.  For as big as the contrast between His Majesty’s appropriate Christian humility and the vainglory of his rotten Canadian prime minister may be there is an even bigger contrast between that humility and the hubris of the festering anal sore who is set to be sworn in again as American president on 20 January.

Yes, that last sentence expresses a rather different character evaluation of Donald the Orange than the one I have been expressing for the last eight years.  As recently as last 5 of November, Guy Fawkes Day and the day of the American presidential election, after declining to endorse either candidate on the grounds that it was an election in another country and for an office, president of a republic, of which I don’t approve, I did say that “If someone were to ask me which of the two candidates I like better as an individual person and which of the two has, in my opinion, the better ideas and policies, my answer to both questions would be Donald the Orange.”  I can no longer say this, although my opinion of Kamala Harris has in no way improved.  One’s insight into another person’s character gets a lot clearer when he is holding a gun to one’s country’s head and screaming “Anschluss!”  Whether he is joking or serious, literal or non-literal, is entirely immaterial. Since he is holding a gun to another country’s head and screaming “Lebensraum” and demanding from yet a third the return of his “Danzig Corridor” he has clearly gone stark raving mad.

Enough, however, about the wounded head, now healed of the revived Roman Empire to our south who has been given a “mouth speaking great things and blasphemies” whose followers all wear a sign of allegiance on their foreheads. I do not wish to write an essay all about him because he thinks everything everywhere should always be about him and I have no desire to indulge him on that.  Rather this essay is about Canada’s small-c conservatives and how the behaviour of some of them over the past week has made me abundantly glad that in my 1 January essay this year I distinguished my own Toryism, not only from big-C Conservative partisanship but from small-c conservatism as well. 

John Casey, writing in the 17 March, 2007 issue of The Spectator, in an article entitled “The Revival of Tory Philosophy” recounted a conversation that had taken place between Enoch Powell and Margaret Thatcher in the Conservative Philosophy Group, which Hugh Fraser, Casey, the late Sir Roger Scruton and others had founded back in the 1970s.  The meeting was just before the Falklands War and in it Edward Norman had given a presentation on the “Christian argument for nuclear weapons.”  In the discussion that followed according to Casey “Mrs. Thatcher said (in effect) that Norman had shown that the Bomb was necessary for the defence of our values.”  Then this exchange took place:

Powell: ‘No, we do not fight for values. I would fight for this country even if it had a communist government.’ Thatcher (it was just before the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands): ‘Nonsense, Enoch. If I send British troops abroad, it will be to defend our values.’ ‘No, Prime  minister, values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed.’ Mrs Thatcher looked utterly baffled. She had just been presented with the difference between Toryism and American Republicanism. 

I very much doubt that many of the small-c conservatives in Canada today would have understood Enoch Powell’s point any more than Margaret Thatcher did although Toryism is the traditional Right of Canada as well as the UK.  One’s country is a concrete good for which a patriot fights regardless of what he may think of the people in government at the moment and what their ideology may happen to be.  Of course many, probably most, on the Right today, would call themselves nationalists rather than patriots and would probably not understand this difference either.  Here it is as explained by American paleoconservative/paleolibertarian Joe Sobran in a column from 16 October, 2001:

This is a season of patriotism, but also of something that is easily mistaken for patriotism; namely, nationalism. The difference is vital.

G.K. Chesterton once observed that Rudyard Kipling, the great poet of British imperialism, suffered from a “lack of patriotism.” He explained: “He admires England, but he does not love her; for we admire things with reasons, but love them without reasons. He admires England because she is strong, not because she is English.”

In the same way, many Americans admire America for being strong, not for being American. For them America has to be “the greatest country on earth” in order to be worthy of their devotion. If it were only the 2nd-greatest, or the 19th-greatest, or, heaven forbid, “a 3rd-rate power,” it would be virtually worthless.

This is nationalism, not patriotism. Patriotism is like family love. You love your family just for being your family, not for being “the greatest family on earth” (whatever that might mean) or for being “better” than other families. You don’t feel threatened when other people love their families the same way. On the contrary, you respect their love, and you take comfort in knowing they respect yours. You don’t feel your family is enhanced by feuding with other families.

While patriotism is a form of affection, nationalism, it has often been said, is grounded in resentment and rivalry; it’s often defined by its enemies and traitors, real or supposed. It is militant by nature, and its typical style is belligerent. Patriotism, by contrast, is peaceful until forced to fight.

Joe Sobran, sadly, passed away far too early in 2010 and so did not live to see the “Make America Great Again” movement.  The paragraphs quoted above, however, are a good indication of what he would have thought of it, especially in its current revised version.  In 2016, the movement used nationalist rhetoric but when it spoke of putting “America First” it sounded like it was echoing what those words meant to Sobran’s friends, Sam Francis and Pat Buchanan.  Neither man took it to mean that the United States should be telling the rest of the world “we’re the best, we’re the strongest, so all the rest of you have to do what we say,” quite the contrary.  Buchanan campaigned for American president three times on a platform of doing the opposite of that.  In 1999 he published a book entitled A Republic not an Empire: Reclaiming America’s Destiny.  In 2016, American neoconservatives, the most vehement supporters of American imperialism, shunned the MAGA movement because it sounded to them like Buchananism.  It was thought by many that MAGA had taken its playbook from Sam Francis, who predeceased Sobran in 2005 and his “Middle American Radicals” strategy.  The MAGA of 2024-5, however, is clearly the nationalism Sobran wrote against, taken to the nth degree, in both rhetoric and reality.  Note that the neoconservatives who shunned it in 2016 are flocking to it today.  Compare the Ben Shapiro of 2016 to the Ben Shapiro of today, for example.

John Lukacs, the Hungarian born historian who fled the Nazi and then Communist occupations of his home country and immigrated to the United States was another who understood the difference between nationalism and patriotism.  He was a man of the Right, but was very skeptical about the American conservative movement which popped up after World War II in a country that had always considered itself to be founded on liberalism.  Lukacs, like his friend Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, another refugee from Europe whom he succeeded as history professor at Chestnut Hill College in Philadelphia when Kuehnelt-Leddihn returned to Austria after the war, he was a Roman Catholic royalist, the continental equivalent of a Tory, and always referred to himself as a reactionary.  I learned to self-apply this favourite epithet of the Left from his example.  In his Democracy & Populism: Fear and Hatred (2005) which I reviewed here, he predicted that a new type of Right was on the ascendency, but warned that it might be an unpalatable sort of Right that blended populism, the demagogic exploitation of dissatisfaction with elites with nationalism rather than traditionalism with patriotism.

The MAGA movement in the United States is, of course, a blend of populism and nationalism.  It is at its best when playing the role of the “agin man”, that is, someone identified by what he is “agin” (against).  It opposes globalism, uncontrolled and illegal immigration, the soft-on-crime policies that are wreaking havoc in places like New York and California, and to the whole combination of racial, sexual, gender and other identity politics that is woke ideology.  MAGA did not invent the opposition to these things, however, and one does not have to be either a populist or a nationalist to oppose them.  The term “woke” in its political sense had not yet become a household word when Joe Sobran died, but he opposed everything the term denotes and we have already seen his opinion of nationalism.  John Lukacs’s mini-book “Immigration and Migration: A Historical Perspective” which can be read in .pdf on the American Immigration Control Foundation’s website here was originally published in 1986, decades before MAGA, the embodiment of the populist nationalism or nationalist populism he foresaw in 2005 and saw unappealing, arrived on the scene.

All of these things that MAGA opposes, the Liberal Party under its present leadership has embraced, taken to their most absurd extremes, and made into its own platform.  This was not in response to MAGA, since Captain Airhead was promoting these things from the moment he became Grit leader, which was a couple of years before he became prime minister the year before that in which Donald the Orange defeated Hilary Clinton.  He did, however, take his cues from the man who was president of the United States at the time, Barack Obama.  Liberal prime ministers in Canada have always taken their cues from the United States.  The Liberal Party has always been the party of Americanization.

In 1891, when Sir John A. Macdonald won his last Dominion election, he was campaigning against Sir Wilfred Laurier’s Liberals who were running on a platform of “unrestricted reciprocity” or what today would be called “free trade” with the United States.  Macdonald has overseen the construction of the railroad in his premiership both to promote trade within Canada, uniting our economy, and to resist pressure to become dependent on trade with the United States, because he correctly foresaw trade dependence on the United States as a step towards falling into the cultural and political gravitational pull of the American republic and so undermining the Confederation Project.  Macdonald won his last majority government in that election, shortly before he passed away, by campaigning against any such outcome.  His campaign posters bore the slogan “The Old Flag, the Old Policy, the Old Leader.”  William Lyon Mackenzie King, who led the Liberal Party for much of the early twentieth century was even more of a free trader and Americanizer than Laurier. 

Now someone might point out that Mackenzie King represented a different wing of the Liberal Party big tent than that which today is identified with the Trudeau family.  That is true but it is also true that the Trudeau Liberals as much as the Mackenzie King Liberals took their cues from the United States.  Indeed, the very celebrity of the Trudeau family in Canada is an imitation of that of the Kennedy family in the United States.  Americans should be grateful that they have not had a second Kennedy presidency.

When Pierre Eliot Trudeau became prime minister he began to expand federal social programs in an unveiled imitation of Lyndon Johnson’s similar expansion in the United States.  More importantly, in 1977 Pierre Trudeau introduced the Canadian Human Rights Act and in 1982, he introduced the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in imitation of the US Bill of Rights.  The Charter gave the Canadian Supreme Court the type of powers the American Supreme Court has and after 1982 Canada began for the first time to experience the kind of cultural revolution through liberal judicial activism that had plagued the United States for decades prior.  The American Supreme Court, for example, threw the Bible and prayer out of American public schools two decades before Pierre Trudeau introduced the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  They were still in Canadian public schools when I attended and I would have been in Grade 1 when the Charter passed.  The Morgentaler ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court came in 1988, 15 years after Roe v. Wade in the United States. Such a ruling would not have been possible prior to 1982.

As for the Canadian Human Rights Act, this was an imitation of the United States’ unnecessary 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibiting private discrimination that capped Martin Luther King Jr. phoney career as a civil rights crusader which started a year after segregation had been ruled unconstitutional by the American Supreme Court and was hence already legally dead.  Most of the free speech battles in Canada during my lifetime have been because of problems that go back to this Act.  Those who maintain that we would not have had these problems if we had the American First Amendment are grossly mistaken.  From 1949 to 1987 the American communications regulator the FCC had a policy called the Fairness Doctrine that amounted to what Jordan Peterson calls “compelled speech”, which transgresses freedom of speech worse than “prohibited speech.”  The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters, if they expressed editorial opinions, to give equal time to the opposite view, thus forcing them to subsidize views they disagreed with.  It was not evenly enforced but was enforced against right-wing broadcasters while left-wing broadcasters were generally left alone.  The Rev. Carl McIntire ran afoul of it, for example, on a number of occasions.  It was not struck down by the US Supreme Court on the grounds of the First Amendment, although challenges on that basis were made.  After pressure from Congress and the Reagan administration, the FCC repealed it itself in 1987.  So no, the American First Amendment is not the sacred guarantee of freedom of speech that some think it to be.  Furthermore, and this is actually the main point, the enforced racial, sexual, and gender identity politics of today’s wokeness, at least insofar as it touches on public policy, in Canada can be traced directly to Pierre Trudeau’s introduction of an Act in 1977 based on an American Act of 1964.  This, coupled with the fact that the biggest agent for promoting wokeness in popular culture, not only in North America but throughout the civilization formerly known as Christendom, has been the mass culture production industry centred in Los Angeles, California demonstrates that wokeness comes stamped with “Made in the USA.”

In 1980 at the beginning of the Reagan administration in the United States and a year into Margaret Thatcher’s premiership in the United Kingdom, Sir Roger Scruton wrote The Meaning of Conservatism to demonstrate that while Reagan and Thatcher had their good points, conservatism was not what they thought it was, free market ideology, but rather the instinct to preserve and pass on the good things that others have built before you because these things are much easier to destroy than to build.  Towards the end of the 1980s, a movement arose in Canada that completely ignored Scruton’s message.  It called itself small-c conservative to distinguish itself from the party, and it took the position that Reaganism/Thatcherism is the standard to which conservatism should hold itself.  While the movement loathed the Liberal Party, its foundational misconception meant that it would never be more than an imitation of the centre-right wing of the Liberal Party.  When it founded an alternative party to the old Conservatives, it gave it the name that the movement which became the Liberal Party had gone under in the years leading up to Confederation, the Reform Party.  It promoted more economic integration between Canada and the United States, the Liberal Party’s position, rather than the economic nationalism traditional to both Canadian Toryism and American Republicanism.  Lacking historical depth and a proper understanding of Confederation it wanted to make Canadian provinces more like American states and the Canadian Senate more like the American Senate.  The social and cultural conservatism of the movement and the Reform Party initially attracted me to them until I realized that these were entirely expendable to the movement and that it would always put business interests ahead of traditions, institutions, and basically all those good things Scruton said that a conservative instinctually defends. 

It is understandable, perhaps, that small-c conservatives, after almost a decade of misrule by the Liberal Party at its worst as far as extreme Leftism goes, would look to the success of the MAGA movement in the United States, but it is a huge mistake to follow the example of the Liberal Party in taking cues from the United States.  Since Epiphany, small-c conservatives have demanded that the prorogation of Parliament end and that we go into the next Dominion Election right away.  I, as well, would like to see that happen.  Challenging the prorogation in court is not the way to go about it.  Should the challenge go through this would weaken the Crown’s reserve powers and that outcome would be worse for us than having to wait until March for the no confidence vote that will inevitably bring down the Liberals.  We should be strengthening, not weakening, the Crown, so as to check any future prime minister from becoming as autocratic as the current one.  What this means is that the role of recommending whom the King appoints as Governor General must go to someone other than the prime minister.  The Governor General should have refused to prorogue Parliament to give the Liberal Party time to choose a new leader, just as Lord Byng refused to dissolve it to save Mackenzie King’s skin 99 years ago.  The solution is not to have the use of the Crown’s powers subjected to judicial review but to take control over the appointment of the Governor General away from the prime minister.  Lord Byng was not appointed at the prime minister’s recommendation.

Furthermore, it is one thing to accuse the prime minister of abusing the process and putting party ahead of country by asking for Parliament to be prorogued until the eve of Lady Day to give the Liberals enough time to choose a new leader.  It is quite another to complain that the Liberal Party choosing a new leader before the dissolution of Parliament that will lead to the Dominion election in which the Liberals are defeated is letting Party insiders choose the next prime  minister rather than the people.  Small-c conservatives, like Ezra Levant and Candace Malcolm, have perhaps not thought through the implications of this talk.  There will be another Dominion Election by October.  There will be one a lot sooner than that, because whoever the Liberals put in as their next leader will be brought down almost immediately when the House sits again.  The next Liberal leader may technically be the next prime minister but it will be a very, very, short premiership.  What Levant, Malcolm, et al., are demonstrating, however, is a lack of understanding of the Westminster Parliamentary model, which allows for the premiership to change hands between elections.  In Dominion elections, we do not vote for the prime minister in the same way Americans vote for their president.  We vote individually for the representative of our constituency, and collectively for a Parliament.  The results determine who will be the next Prime minister – the person who has the confidence of the House – but not directly.  It has been a huge mistake over the last thirty years or so to increasingly treat each Dominion election as if it were a direct vote for the prime minister.  The last thing we need in this country is to import more of the American cult of the leader.  Green Party leader Elizabeth May showed more understanding of our Parliamentary system and more basic constitutional conservatism than anyone at True North or Rebel when she schooled the American president-elect on why Wayne Gretsky can’t run directly for prime minister.

Then there are those who think Kevin O’Leary’s proposal of an EU style, common market, common currency has merit.  This appears to include Brian Lilley.  Has it perhaps eluded their notice that the result of this experiment in Europe was that each country involved began to face a migration crisis and related problems similar but on a larger scale to those that conservatives in Canada and the United States say they want to solve rather than exacerbate?

The small-c conservatives who have annoyed me the most have been those who have suggested one anti-patriotic response to Trump’s obnoxious behaviour or another.  Laughing alongside Trump as if his “51st state” remarks were jokes only at Trudeau’s expense rather than that of the country as a whole is one example, excusing his remarks on the grounds that this is how he does business, “it’s all in the Art of the Deal” is another.  If that is how he does business that compounds the charge against him it does not excuse it.  Going around saying “I’m bigger than you and stronger then you therefore you have to do as I say or I’m going to take your toys” is bad behaviour in the schoolyard and it is no more acceptable anywhere else.  It is just as reprehensible in business as it is in geopolitics.  Then there is the response of emphasizing what good friends Canada and the United States have been.  That is not the way to talk at this time.  As Joe Warmington in the Toronto Sun put it “Trump can no longer claim to be a friend to Canada. No friend talks like this.”  The problem with these anti-patriotic small-c “conservatives” is that while they lack true patriotism, that love of Canada like unto their love for their own immediately family, they do have a Nietzschean worship of power and strength which they direct towards the United States that in certain respects resembles what Joe Sobran called nationalism except that it is worse because it is focused on a country other than their own.  Mercifully, these types are, I think, a small, if loud, minority.

The prize for the most reprehensible attitude goes to Stephen K. Roney who has been positively salivating at the idea of becoming the 51st state.  He seems to be under the impression that those of us who love our country bear the burden of justifying her continuing independence of the United States.  My answer to him is that if he wants to be an American so badly he is free to move there if the Americans will let him.  I wouldn’t let him if I were the Americans.  Someone who has that kind of attitude towards his own country cannot be trusted to be loyal to any other.

Yes, if these types are what it means to be “conservative” today, I am glad that I am a Tory rather than a conservative, just as I am very glad to be a Canadian, a citizen of a Commonwealth Realm and the subject of a king who went to his coronation to follow the example of the King of kings, not to be served but to serve, rather than the citizen of an imperial republic, whose incoming president is so full of himself, that I half expect him to raise a statue of himself in the National Cathedral in Washington DC and demand that not just Americans but everyone in the world worship before it.

God Save the King. Gerry T. Neal

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Paul Fromm on “The Political Cesspool” :The End of Trudeau & Major Positive Effects of Incoming President Donald Trump

Posted on by

Paul Fromm on “The Political Cesspool” :The End of Trudeau & Major Positive Effects of Incoming President Donald Trump

I appeared on “The Political Cesspool” tonight, hosted by James Edwards. I discussed Trudeau’s resignation and the many positive effects of Donald Trump on Canada. Change is already coming and the reversal of Woke. Radio Show Hour 1 – 2025/01/11 – The Political Cesspool Radio Programme. https://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/radio-show-hour-1-2025-01-11/

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , ,

Mike Bator, People’s Party of Canada Candidate in Burlington, On Immigration Reform:

Posted on by

Access to Canada was once a carefully managed privilege, considering individual character, national needs, and capacities. It took into account our ability to build houses and sustain population growth while maintaining infrastructure like education, transportation, and healthcare.

Immigrants didn’t always have degrees or higher education—take my grandparents, for instance, peasant farmers who fled post-WWI Poland. Back then, the government imposed rules about where immigrants could live. My grandparents spent five years in Edmonton to earn their citizenship before moving to Toronto and starting a family. My former father-in-law, a highly skilled electrician from Manchester, needed a sponsor to immigrate. His family of five initially shared a townhouse in Oakville with their sponsor before buying a home in rural Acton, where he later established a globally recognized airport runway lighting company.

Backed by solid financials, European Christian values, and a holistic approach to nation-building, immigrants thrived, contributing significantly to our nation. Now, we face what seems like a mass immigration invasion, straining our resources and infrastructure. We need a sound, manageable approach to immigration, not an overwhelming influx.

I’m tired of ineffective leadership and slogans that don’t address the real issues. No, Mr. Trudeau, we won’t let our nation be destroyed. No, Mr. Poilievre, we reject unrealistic housing solutions. No, Mr. Singh, your actions do not justify undermining Canada’s foundations. If you cherish Canada and want to preserve the country you grew up in, it’s time to reject these corrupt globalists. Vote for @MaximeBernier to protect our nation’s integrity and future

Access to Canada was once a carefully managed privilege, considering individual character, national needs, and capacities. It took into account our ability to build houses and sustain population growth while maintaining infrastructure like education, transportation, and healthcare.

Immigrants didn’t always have degrees or higher education—take my grandparents, for instance, peasant farmers who fled post-WWI Poland. Back then, the government imposed rules about where immigrants could live. My grandparents spent five years in Edmonton to earn their citizenship before moving to Toronto and starting a family. My former father-in-law, a highly skilled electrician from Manchester, needed a sponsor to immigrate. His family of five initially shared a townhouse in Oakville with their sponsor before buying a home in rural Acton, where he later established a globally recognized airport runway lighting company.

Backed by solid financials, European Christian values, and a holistic approach to nation-building, immigrants thrived, contributing significantly to our nation. Now, we face what seems like a mass immigration invasion, straining our resources and infrastructure. We need a sound, manageable approach to immigration, not an overwhelming influx.

I’m tired of ineffective leadership and slogans that don’t address the real issues. No, Mr. Trudeau, we won’t let our nation be destroyed. No, Mr. Poilievre, we reject unrealistic housing solutions. No, Mr. Singh, your actions do not justify undermining Canada’s foundations. If you cherish Canada and want to preserve the country you grew up in, it’s time to reject these corrupt globalists. Vote for @MaximeBernier to protect our nation’s integrity and future

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , ,

Tough Talk Needed on Border Issues

Posted on by

Tough talk needed on border issues

“Lay low for 14 days and you’re in as an illegal”

  • National Post
  • 14 Nov 2024
  • JAMIE SARKONAK
With the threat of mass deportations from the U.S., and a policy in Canada that allows unauthorized residents to claim asylum should they lay low for 14 days, it’s only rational for would-be claimants to try, Jamie Sarkonak says.

Currently, as the rules stand, migrants from the United States can cross into Canada, wait two weeks, and become eligible to file a refugee claim here. The northern border sure must be looking like a home-free line, now that Donald Trump has been elected on a promise to carry out mass deportations of illegal migrants.

So, if there was ever a time Canada needed to send a very loud, very public, “no more Mr. Nice Guy” message to economically motivated asylum seekers — firm messaging backed up by policy changes to ward their numbers off — it’s right now.

The numbers are already too high. Last year, nearly 150,000 people staked refugee claims here, rendering us the fifth-largest destination for asylum seekers that year. Two years’ worth of asylum claims are inching their way through the immigration system, many of these from friendly not-at-war countries that have no business sending us thousands of refugees.

India, Nigeria, and Mexico are where the largest number of claims come from, but there are many others that shouldn’t be sending refugees our way. Each successful applicant — from friendly, at-peace countries — is a potential online advertisement for immigration services online; that is, potential inspiration for others looking to claim refugee status. Of course, many of these claimants aren’t actually in danger, as required by law, and are willing to travel home, prompting immigration consultants to make warnings against doing so.

With the threat of mass deportations from the U.S., and a policy in Canada that allows unauthorized residents to claim asylum should they lay low for 14 days, it’s only rational for would-be claimants to try. It could very well be a painful squeeze — the U.S. received 1.2 million asylum claims last year alone, and some fraction of that number can be expected to divert to the north come 2025.

The trek to Canada will be a rational one for many. To observers on the outside, we’re the country that welcomes everyone, hands out bags of free food, offers free care, has loads of jobs to fill along with land, oh so much land. We know this isn’t actually how Canada works, but they don’t.

Seriously. Extensive immigration influencer videos have advertised Canadian “free food” to those abroad, which have no doubt made this country a more attractive place to attempt asylum. Rent is often covered by the Canadian tax base as the wait for claim adjudication drags on — which ultimately puts low-income Canadians in competition with migrants for housing. Some also end up competing with homeless Canadians, taking up critical space in shelters from Vancouver to Toronto.

MANY OF THESE CLAIMANTS AREN’T ACTUALLY IN DANGER.

In health care, it’s a similar problem. These populations strain the health-care system: the Star reported last week that “Midwives and physicians in emergency departments said they’re seeing significantly more uninsured clients accessing care at later stages of a complicated pregnancy or an already developed cancer or AIDS.” The uninsured being, in part, migrants who are in Canada illegally. Bad deal for us, good deal for them.

Between rosy influencer advertising and borders-open messaging from our own Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a lot more needs to be done to reverse the perception that Canada is a welcome home for economic “refugees.”

The incoming Trump administration has been strong out of the gate in turning around the perception of the United States as a bottomless bread basket of free amenities. Federal and state governments have rolled out unauthorized-friendly initiatives for a while now: feds have done their best to soften deportation rules, and some state governments have offered perks like pre-paid debit cards for migrants, as well as free rent. But Trump’s messaging has been clear that deportations are coming, and his border-enforcer-to-be, Tom Homan, is just as forceful: “You better start packing now, cause you’re going home,” Homan told a crowd earlier this year.

We haven’t been so firm. Visitor visa rules were tightened this week, but the home-free-in-twoweeks line remains in place.

Most of our country’s messaging includes tepid inward-facing assurances that everything is under control. The faceless blob that is the Canadian administrative state says there’s nothing to worry about: the RCMP learned from post-2016 migration which “provided us with the tools and insight necessary to address similar types of occurrences.” The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) says, “we are ready to respond and adapt as needed.”

Homan, meanwhile, isn’t raving about our competency, stating in a recent TV interview that the northern border is an “extreme national security vulnerability” and that “tough conversations” are soon to be had with Canada.

Meanwhile, Immigration Minister Marc Miller is nonchalant, telling the Globe and Mail: “We will always be acting in the national interest and those measures that we move to undertake, regardless of what decision is taken by the new administration, to make sure that our borders are secure, that people that are coming to Canada do so in a regular pathway, and the reality that not everyone is welcome here.”

Well, that sure sends a message. “Not everyone is welcome here.”

Each statement from Canadian officials has the same bland, inoffensive lack of substance that could only come from either a comms department trained to generate few words of meaning or an AI text generator. None are backed by the force of strong, loophole-closing policy change.

Miller’s job right now isn’t just to soothe Canadians with words as bland as beige walls. He has to dispel years of false impressions of Canadian life inspired by a multitude of enthusiastic foreign-language Youtube and Tiktok howto vlogs about immigration, with rhetoric and hard policy. Right now, he’s falling short.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , ,

THE CONTROVERSY OVER CHRISTIAN HERITAGE MONTH

Posted on by

Christian Heritage Month Is True “Social Equity”–The Liberals Hate That

To enact Christian Heritage Month would be an exercise in authentic social equity. The rulers of “post-modern” Canada want nothing of the sort.

Share

“More than 25 Canadian cities so far have signed a proclamation declaring the entire month of December as Christian Heritage Month, calling for provinces to do the same.”

An article published this week by Western Standard News speaks to a growing demand for an establishment of heritage status for the Christian faith in Canada.

“Municipalities include Okotoks and Red Deer in Alberta, Prince George and Whistler in BC, Regina and Saskatoon in Saskatchewan, and more than 15 Ontario cities and regions, such as Ajax, Durham, Niagara Falls, Ottawa, Sudbury and Mississauga.” 

Canada is a country awash in government-endorsed heritage month designations. An effective drill-down on the subject calls for a definition of word “heritage.”

According to Vocabulary.com, “heritage can refer to practices or characteristics that are passed down through the years, from one generation to the next.”

“Researching your family tree would help you gain a sense of your personal heritage. Heritage is often used to discuss a cultural aspect or tradition that has been passed down through generations.”

Although dropping like a bomb relative to the rise of 3rd World-derived religions, a little over half of our population define themselves as “practising Christians.” Christianity is the most adhered-to religion in Canada, with 19,373,330 Canadians, or 53.3%, identifying themselves as of the 2021 census.

In terms of national heritage, the Christian-European influence permeates nearly every aspect of the foundation of Canadian society.

“The first official settlement of Canada was Québec, founded by Samuel de Champlain in 1608. The other four colonies within New France were Hudson’s Bay to the north, Acadia and Newfoundland to the east, and Louisiana far to the south. Canada became the most developed of the five colonies of New France.“

Cultural Action Party [est 2016] find it fascinating how, in terms of the woke assault on the colonial foundation of our country, the “French First” element is perpetually omitted. Due to Liberal government bias, the common perception is that Anglophones are at fault for the hardship experienced by our First Nations communities.

Be that as it may, the core elements of Canadian society largely derive from England. Parliamentary structure, legal and court systems, democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, et al. All of which add credence to the concept of a government-sanctioned Christian Heritage Month in Canada.

“Conservative MP Introduces Bill To Declare December Christian Heritage Month”

December, 2023: “Bill C-369, The Christian Heritage Month Act, is unlikely to be debated or come up for a vote.”

MP Marilyn Gladu noted that “members of other faiths in Canada, including Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and Jews, have their own heritage months.”

You can say that again. In fact, the designations range from the sublime to the ridiculous:

Sikh Heritage Month, Islamic History Month, Tamil Heritage Month, Lebanese Heritage Month, Filipino Heritage Month, Hindu Heritage Month are the rainbow-coloured flavour of the day in Canada.

According to a 2016 census, 219,555 Canadians claimed Lebanese ancestry. A 2021 census informs us that just under 20 million citizens of our country adhere to the Christian faith.

The  response to MP Gladu’s proposition was swift and direct: “forget about it,” opined the Liberal caucus. The bill didn’t even make it past the first reading.

According to CBC News, “the bill lands as the Conservatives press a petition campaign against a Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) paper that described statutory holidays marking Christian religious dates as discriminatory.“

How’s that for a kick-in-the-face via the Liberal government of Canada? By now, concerned citizens are accustomed to such behaviours. Our PM’s tenure coincides with the most extreme animus toward a religious community in modern Canadian history.

The bill flopped, not only by way of Trudeau’s Liberals, but with a healthy dose of hatred for the idea from leader Jagmeet Singh’s New Democratic Party. Charlie Angus, caucus leader of the New Democratic Party (NDP) would have none of it.

Bringing the conversation to its base-line as it relates to social equality in Canada: “social equity,” and its myriad vicissitudes. It’s a piece of wokeness which exists at the core of Liberal government ideology. Foundational to the woke academic movement; ubiquitous among mainstream media publications.

Too bad it doesn’t actually exist. If social equity was authentically applied, Christian Heritage Month would have been-in-the-bag decades ago.

“From a population of fewer than 150 in 1983, Tamils form an increasing share of the overall Canadian population. As per the 2021 Canadian census, Tamil Canadians number approximately 240,000 and account for roughly 0.7% of Canada’s population.”

“Your[Tamil Canadians] contributions to this country are extraordinary,” stated PM Trudeau on the coveted day of Tamil Heritage Month.

In contrast, Justin Trudeau speaks of Canada’s European-derived heritage:

“We have consistently marginalized, engaged in colonial behaviours, in destructive behaviours, in assimilationist behaviours, that have left a legacy of challenges to a large portion of the people who live in Canada.”

Love you to, Justin. In these dynamics we discover the nature of the woke beast that is the Liberal government of Canada. They detest our national heritage, maintain wicked animus toward Canada’s European-Christian-Anglophone heritage, while at the same time heaping praise on Tamil and Lebanese communities.

What up with all of this, anyway? CBC certainly aren’t going to tell you. Nor CTV, Globe & Mail, Toronto Star or any other legacy media publication. Therefore, one is left to draw their own conclusion, like this:

The Trudeau government are not here to “manage” our country. They exist to transform Canada. What’s the take-away message from Trudeau’s inversion of community priority? The dynamics are nothing short of an exercise in absurdity. Yet, on and on it goes.

The Liberals don’t want it, and you can bet your bottom rubie NDP leader Jagmeet Singh concurs. To do so would be an exercise in authentic social equity. The rulers of “post-modern” Canada want nothing of the sort.

In terms of federal government support for an official designation of Christian Heritage Month, it will be a cold-day-in-hell when our prime minister and his crew of neo-communists give this one the thumbs up.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , ,

Diane Francis: Canada’s immigration problems are of Trudeau’s own making

Posted on by

Diane Francis: Canada’s immigration problems are of Trudeau’s own making

Trudeau has been putting his own interests above those of the Canadians he is supposed to serve

Author of the article:

Diane Francis

Published Oct 22, 2024  •  Last updated Oct 22, 2024  •  3 minute read

14 Comments

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in Ottawa, Ont., on Oct. 16.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in Ottawa, Ont., on Oct. 16. Photo by Justin Tang/The Canadian Press files

The global immigration mess spreads because asylum laws are easily gamed and smuggling is an industry unto itself. Europe and the United States have been deluged with people from nearby impoverished, corrupt or war-torn countries.

Canada, on the other hand, should not have a problem — but it does. It shares a border with the United States and oceans separate it from the world’s trouble spots. But Canada’s political system is dysfunctional. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau vastly increased the number of immigrants, temporary foreign workers and asylum seekers who are admitted to Canada every year.

“Nearly three-million people living in Canada have some type of temporary immigration status, with 2.2 million arriving in just the past two years, according to government statistics. Temporary residents represent 6.8 per cent of the country’s total population of 41.3 million, up from 3.5 per cent in 2022,” reported the New York Times.

This flood of immigrants has sparked a backlash. A recent Leger survey conducted for the Association of Canadians Studies (ACS) found that two-thirds of Canadians believe immigration levels are too high. “What’s different in this survey is that negative sentiment towards immigrants is noticeably on the rise and has also reached levels not seen in the last two decades,” said Jack Jedwab, the chief executive of ACS.

Negative sentiment towards immigrants is noticeably on the rise and has also reached levels not seen in the last two decades

Jack Jedwab

Recent immigration has contributed to economic and social problems in the two biggest destination cities, Toronto and Vancouver. Housing prices are unaffordable and health-care systems are overburdened.

“To break out of this rut and prevent this further decline in Canada’s living standards relative to our peers, policymakers must enact comprehensive and bold policy changes to encourage business investment and innovation, promote worker education and training, and achieve better immigration outcomes where more is not always better,” wrote the Fraser Institute’s Alex Whalen, Milagros Palacios and Lawrence Schembri in July.

In a recent interview with the Financial Post, Patrick Brown, mayor of Brampton, Ont., attested to the problems caused by Ottawa’s irresponsible immigration policies, notably the flood of student visas handed out in recent years. For several years in Brampton, storefront operations advertised that they could obtain student visas for foreign students in return for a fee.

Mayor Brown said there were “private ‘colleges’ in plazas.… We found legitimate universities and colleges and also the wild west. A number had been approved by the (Ontario) Ministry of Colleges and Universities. But some had not. Now, international students must go to the public (government-funded) schools, not the private ones.”

It appears that federal immigration officials were approving student visas for people to go to questionable, or even non-existent, colleges. This is now getting “cleaned up,” according to Brown. But how many of the student visa holders who are already here are actually students attending legitimate institutions? How many of these “colleges in plazas” have been shut down or investigated?

Recommended from Editorial

Though Trudeau has looked to put curbs on immigration in recent months due to the undeniable problems his reckless policies have caused, it has become abundantly clear that he has been putting his own interests above those of the Canadians he is supposed to serve.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , ,

“Social Equity” Or Racism Against White Canadians: Judge For Yourself“

Posted on by
“Social Equity” Or Racism Against White Canadians: Judge For Yourself“

Many of them[Canadians] think that they have a right to equal treatment under the law. They think that discrimination is illegal. But nothing could be further from the truth.”Brad SalzbergOct 21 READ IN APP Share“Canadians have been sold a bill of goods,” says Bruce Pardy, the author of the report and a Queen’s University law professor.“Many of them think that they have a right to equal treatment under the law. They think that discrimination is illegal. But nothing could be further from the truth. In Canada, discrimination is lawful as long as it is committed against the right groups — and in particular against straight white men.”Professor Pardy’s distinction between social equality and social “equity” is critical to race-relations in our country. At present, the ominous nature of his statements are poorly understood within Canadian society. “Social ‘equity’ recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome. Social ‘equality’ means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities.” “This isn’t just the law, but part of the Canadian Constitution. Unequal treatment is embedded as a constitutional standard — and in some situations, a constitutional requirement.”“Equal treatment and equity are opposites,” writes Pardy, senior fellow at the Aristotle Foundation.

As an example, we turn to Toronto Metropolitan University[formerly Ryerson], who recently made an administrative decision to limit the intake of white medical school students to 25% of those accepted to the program.Equality, or racism? If and when Caucasian Canadians reach 25% of TMU medical school acceptance, further candidates will be excluded simply because they are white, heterosexual males.“The law cannot simultaneously apply the same laws and standards to everyone and also adjust them depending upon the group. Equal treatment and equity are mutually exclusive and cannot co-exist.””This issue should be particularly concerning to young Canadians who could be squeezed out of opportunities because of their identity.”Is it a hyperbolic statement to suggest that TMU policy emulates Nazi-era racial prejudice?“In April 1933, the law restricted the number of Jewish students at German schools and universities. In the same month, further legislation sharply curtailed ‘Jewish activity’ in the medical and legal professions.”

Back on contemporary Canadian soil, we learn the following:“While the American constitution sets out limits on the powers of legislatures,” Pardy writes, “For most of its history, Canada did not have an equivalent.””In 1974, the Canadian Supreme Court underscored this point by saying that while citizens are entitled to the application of law in a neutral way, lawmakers are not curtailed from drafting unequal laws.”Wanna know what this spells for Canadians of European heritage? T-r-o-u-b-l-e, that’s what. The source of inverted racism against Anglophone Canadians is the Canada Research Chair program.“The current opening for a Canada Research Chair in physics  at the University of New Brunswick will not accept applications from white men. Similarly, white people can’t apply to Dalhousie’s opening for a chair in industrial engineering. Many more such cases exist.”To justify the prejudice against white Canadians, academia reference the following: “We pursue policies that were established in law by the Federal Court and subject to a mediation that was overseen by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.” “Those policies are contained in an addendum to the program and are set to ensure that by the year 2030, the Canada Research Chairs Program will ‘look’ more like Canada…”How the woke vengeance-seekers love this one. Knowing that whites are on a demographic decline, they plan to push this to the limit. Down the road, let’s say when whites comprise 20% of our demography, these communities would be limited to 20% of employment opportunities within Canada’s university system.Bringing about an obvious question: what if the policy doesn’t apply exclusively to schools, colleges and universities? What if– lord help us– these policies permeate every government-related job sector in Canada?We dare to put forth a proposition perpetually eschewed by media– including our “alternative media” sector, as minimal as it is.Immigration policy in Canada is serving as the impetus to transition Canadians of European heritage to a second class community. Why do you think the woke, media, academia and government are unified in their advancement of the evils of “colonialism?”

The premise is deceptively simple: “you stole the land in the first place, so we have the right to steal it back.”Back to Bruce Pardy: “By comparison[with United States], in Canada, unequal treatment has become the constitutional standard. So we are stuck with a big problem.”CAP refuse to mince words:  It’s Canada’s “Old Stock” communities who are stuck with a “big problem.”“Our Supreme Court is largely to blame, but of course our foolish politicians and woke bureaucracies have had a big hand in fostering it as well.”Kudos to Professor Pardy. As for CBC, CTV, Globe & Mail, Toronto Star, Montreal Gazette, Calgary Herald et al, you can forget about it. They wouldn’t expose these realities for all the white rice in China.“Every individual is equal before and under the law,” says the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination.”“But the Supreme Court of Canada has long insisted that the clause does not mean equal treatment but equity.””So what happened? The federal government established a Royal Commission on Equality in Employment, also known as the Abella Commission after its commissioner Rosalie Abella. Abella, now retired, would later become the most activist judge on the court.””The commission’s report, released in 1984, recommended employment equity policies in the federal government and in federally regulated companies, and led to the passage of the federal Employment Equity Act in 1986, which required affirmative action programs that gave preference to candidates from some groups over others.”In Canada, “Liberalism” in all its vicissitudes– government, academia, corporations, law, courts–  has instituted a program for comprehensive marginalization of Canada’s Caucasian communities.Is this the true meaning behind Justin Trudeau’s proclamation stating that Canada is a “post-modern” society? Who, pray-tell, was prime minister of Canada during the 10-plus years that all of this came into being? Pierre Trudeau is your answer.“The strict enforcement of diversity rules has indeed changed the demographics of the Canada Research Chairs program. As of last September, it surpassed its 2029 racial minority quota of 22 per cent, but the racially exclusionary job ads persist.”President of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), Ted Hewitt “revealed that he had no plan to pare back the quotas — even though some have been surpassed.”Bingo. There’s your social “equity” for you. Now, back to Hockey Night in Canadastan.
Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , ,

Immigration Policy Is The Root Cause Of Foreign Election Interference In Canada

Posted on by

Immigration Policy Is The Root Cause Of Foreign Election Interference In Canada

Fascinating it is to note the “missing link” in all of this– the degree to which government and media sublimate the number one cause of foreign interference.

e

Many will be familiar with the term the “elephant in the room.” With this in mind, we consider the nature of governmental response to accusations of Canadian foreign election interference.

On the hot seat this week is Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who offered the following comment while being interviewed at the Foreign Election Interference Inquiry:

“These were covert, clandestine, and coercive measures—ranging from threats to withhold family visas, to paying sources for information. These actions represented a serious threat to public safety,” said Trudeau.

In this statement is found the key to the political “escape root” backroom Liberal government strategists are applying to the scandal. The “victims” are members of Canada’s diaspora communities– as opposed to citizens within general society.

Immigrants, refugees, and 3rd world ethnic communities. Eschewed in the narrative is the impact on “the rest of us.” By now, we know the type– “second rate” citizens who form the core of those who oppose PM Trudeau’s brand of globalist politics: Old Stock Canadians, multi-generational citizens, Anglophones, Christians and others of this ilk.

Fascinating it is to note a “missing link” in all of this. Namely, the degree to which government and media sublimate the number one cause of foreign interference.

Immigration policy is the one. As incredible as it seems, no one within Canada’s monolithic media conglomerate has pointed to a tangible truth: mass immigration from China, South Asia and the Middle East is the root source for the undermining of democratic governance in our country.

“Representatives of a B.C. Sikh temple whose president was shot dead last year, as well as the Sikh separatist group he was involved in, say their communities won’t feel safe until India’s consulates in Vancouver and Toronto are shut down.”

Gurkeerat Singh, spokesperson for the gurdwara, stated that “the safety and the security of Sikhs will still be in question unless India’s consulates are shut down.”

Right, The safety of the Sikhs, who at present comprise two percent of Canada’s total population. Holy Cow, these people sure make a lot of noise relative to demographic representation. But hey– that’s so-called “Multiculturalism” for ya.

A recent article from Policy Options shed light on the grief experienced by Chinese-Canadians as result of alleged election interference:

“These stories illustrate the CCP’s direct influence on diaspora communities, making these groups a target for foreign interference efforts. The CCP and China are not alone in conducting interference campaigns in Canada through disinformation campaigns, which have a significant and negative impact on the people who make up diaspora communities in Canada.”

These people may suffer, but does it really compare to the damage being inflicted on general society? The by-products of Liberal immigration policy affect all Canadians, not just government-coddled and coveted 3rd world diaspora peoples.

When media sublimate the high-level damage, they are freed from pointing to another obvious outcome of institutionalized Multiculturalism, diversity and the rest of the woke jive.

The missing link being the relationship between diaspora communities, and members of Parliament they vote into office. While myriad reports speak of the degree that culprits exist within the Liberal Party, our PM delivers the globalist goods:

“Trudeau addressed three memos starting in 2019 that intended to brief him on foreign interference threats, all of which he claimed never reached his desk.”

“I have faith, having looked at the paper, that it was indeed the right decision by the National Security Intelligence Advisor—that it wasn’t a document that significantly added in a relevant way to my understanding of the situation.”

Let Cultural Action Party [est. 2016] state it for the record: if Mr. Trudeau wanted to know details on federal election interference, he could have. The volume of CSIS intelligence output makes it near-impossible for our PM not to be aware of the phenomenon in any capacity.

Therefore, as far as the Liberal Party is concerned, Trudeau functions as a brick-wall of information-gathering. As opposed to that which he was willing to expose in this week’s proceedings:

As reported by journalist Sam Cooper of The Bureau:

“Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has testified on his view of two explosive Canadian intelligence reports, including the ‘Targeting Paper,’ which described how Chinese diplomats assessed Canadian MPs based on how helpful or hurtful they could be to Beijing.”

“Trudeau confirmed that this report was not shared with him by his key security advisor, Jody Thomas.”

A big, fat zero. Trudeau is functioning as a brick-wall of information-gathering prevention. As opposed to what he was willing to expose in this week’s proceedings:

“I have the names of a number of parliamentarians, former parliamentarians and-or candidates in the Conservative Party of Canada who are engaged (in) or at high risk of or for whom there is clear intelligence around foreign interference,” Trudeau said.

So Trudeau knows nothing about any of this except the identity of Conservative turn-coats.

“Global News reported that its intelligence sources with knowledge of CSIS affairs reported that [Liberal MP candidate Han] Dong was an alleged witting affiliate in China’s election interference networks.”

“Sources state that Trudeau and senior Liberal party officials ignored CSIS warnings about Dong, which has been denied by Trudeau.”

In 2021, the PM issued the following public statement:  “I do not have any information, nor have I been briefed on any federal candidates receiving any money from China.”

Yet, he has the “dope” on Conservative MPs.

 “Anonymous sources who spoke to Global News “described years of interactive dialogue between senior intelligence officials and Trudeau’s office regarding China’s incursions into Canadian elections.”

Never say die. Unconscionable as the day is long, it’s obvious Justin Trudeau will never come clean with the people of Canada.

In turn, media toe the party line. Mass immigration is the source of scandal; the fall-out being a degeneration of democracy in “post-modern” Canadian society.

Ie source of scandal; the fall-out being a degeneration of democracy in “post-modern” Canadian society.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , ,

The War on Whites: Justin Trudeau Endorses Race-Based Muslim Employee Hiring In Canada

Posted on by

The War on Whites: Justin Trudeau Endorses Race-Based Muslim Employee Hiring In Canada

She has no legitimacy to make recommendations for Quebec. She must leave her position, and it should simply be abolished.”

Brad SalzbergSep 14

Share

Meritocracy, definition:

“Political, social, or economic system in which individuals are assigned to positions of power, influence, or reward solely on the basis of their abilities and achievements, and not on the basis of their social, cultural, or economic background or irrelevant personal characteristics.”

 “The theory of meritocracy presupposes the possibility of equality of opportunity.”

There’s “meritocracy,” and then there’s hypocrisy. Within the context of woke ideology, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has indulged in latter like no other national leader in Canadian history.

It’s the essence of “wokism” as manifest in our PM’s recent endorsement of race-based hiring. It’s one thing for Liberal government-approved “Islamophobia Czar” Amira Elghawaby to indulge in the practice– such ethno-centricism is to be expected.

“The Quebec government renewed its call for Canada’s special representative on combating Islamophobia to resign Friday, after she sent a letter to college and university heads recommending the hiring of more Muslim, Arab and Palestinian professors.”

“It was the reference to hiring that drew the immediate indignation of Quebec’s higher education minister, who called on Elghawaby to resign, saying she should mind her own business.”

After which Justin Trudeau came to the rescue:

“Speaking to reporters in the Montreal area, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that while each university has its own rules on hiring, Elghawaby’s role is to make recommendations and encourage dialogue between different groups.”

Turning to Canadian law, we uncover a piece of pertinent information:

“The Canadian Human Rights Act has long prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, and certain other grounds.” 

Holy Cow. The Canadian Human Rights Act serves as the cornerstone of government’s commitment to racial equality. In turn, non-profit organizations such as National Council Of Canadian Muslims live-and-breathe by such legislative edicts.

Tell us, Ms. Elghawaby– if our institutions of higher learning indulge in hiring policies exclusive to Muslims, what happens to candidates who come from outside the community?

Logical answer: they don’t get the job. Now, tell us how this fails to equate with “prohibited discrimination” against, for example, white or Sikh employment candidates?

“A spokesperson for Canadian Heritage said that Elghawaby was not available for comment on Friday.”

Right. Informed Canadians understand the way these things roll. When it’s time to whine and complain about racism, the so-called anti-racists are there with rainbow-coloured bells on. When time arrives to defend their behaviour, they’re as silent as the lambs.

“Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Jean-François Roberge criticized Elghawaby on Friday for interfering in the management of Quebec institutions and committing the ‘unthinkable’ act of hiring professors based on their faith.”

Hate to break it to you, Minister Roberge, but there is nothing “unthinkable” about this. Straight out of the gate, Mr. Trudeau went all-in on the “race-card”— the outcome being a systemic winding-up of race-oriented controversy.

Looking back at 20th century history, we recognise the fall-out of such situations. In cases of social revolution, the issue of race transitions to a weapon of political manipulation. Call us paranoid, but we say that the Liberals have with full intention cultivated this phenomenon for political purposes.

Readers may recognise a piece of deja vu in regard to Amira Elgabaway’s contentious position:

“In response to her nomination, Quebec political leaders in 2023 called on Elghawaby, a journalist and human rights activist, to have her appointment as Canada’s first anti-Islamophobia representative rescinded.”

Nothing happened, and in typical woke style, nothing will change regarding this latest round of condemnation.

In response, “[Quebec Premier Francois] Legault criticized Trudeau for defending Elghawaby in the name of diversity and refusing to call for her resignation.”

It is with minimal surprise that we trace PM Trudeau’s ethnocentric endorsement to socialist political imperatives endorsed by our prime minister.

“One such aspect of the capitalist education system is the ‘myth of meritocracy.’ While Marxists argue that class background and money determine how good of an education people get, the myth of meritocracy posits that everyone has an equal chance at success.”

A fair amount of media ink has been spilt in terms of Canada’s Marxist-infused education system. Here, Trudeau tacitly endorses the phenomenon.

“Not only is (education) a jurisdiction of the Quebec government, but it is a jurisdiction of the universities,” Legault said.

In this regard, one must comprehend socialism at its base form. For communist governments, everything within society falls under government jurisdiction. It’s how mainstream media became a branch of our federal government. It’s the method by which CBC Corporation hire new employees, and a core component of hiring practices within Canadian corporations and NGO’s.

Not good enough. Looking to place the agenda on steroids, rather than an “open field” for job candidates, advocates want it whittled down to one ethnic community in particular.

“We’ve seen an increase in rhetoric and tension and I think we all have to really reflect on what we’re doing to bring people together to make sure we’re listening to each other and even people with very different perspectives that may challenge us, make sure that we’re hearing each other,” Trudeau said regarding the controversy.

What a pile of steaming hogwash. His statement doesn’t say anything of substance at all. Still, there’s one thing Canadians know well and good. When it comes to Trudeau’s preferred ethnic voter communities, no words of criticism ever come forth.

“She has no legitimacy to make recommendations for Quebec. She must leave her position, and it should simply be abolished,” stated Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Jean-François Roberge.

Justin Trudeau has no legitimacy to back this latest version of community ethno-centricm. Unfortunately, this and a loonie will get you a half-cup of coffee at Tim Horton’s.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , ,

Trudeau Appoints Christian-Hating Transgender Lobbyist to the Senate: Slap in the Face to Christian, Straight, Conservative Alberta

Posted on by

SNEAK ATTACK: Trudeau just appointed a transgender extremist to the Senate — from Alberta!

On the Labour Day long weekend, when no-one was paying any attention to politics, Justin Trudeau thought it was the perfect time to make a sneak attack on Alberta — and on children.

Justin Trudeau just made the most atrocious appointment to the Canadian Senate he’s ever done — giving Alberta’s most extreme transgender activist, Kris Wells, a Senate appointment that will last more than 20 years.

Wells is the most extreme Senate appointment Trudeau has ever made.

Activism Around Transgenderism for Children

Kris Wells has spent twenty years promoting transgenderism, especially to children in schools where they’re away from their parents.

His life’s work has been to get kids, when they’re at school, to join sexuality clubs called gay-straight alliances, and to keep what happens in those clubs secret from parents. They encourage kids start changing their pronouns; to start identifying as non-binary or trans.

And here’s the most terrifying part: they encourage these kids to medically transition — that is, to take hormones or even surgery to cut off their body parts.

These are minor children, in high school or even junior high. And all of this happens without any notice to parents.

That has been Wells’ life’s work in Alberta. Targeting children for transgenderism and fighting against giving parents any notice of what’s going on.

And now Trudeau has just appointed him to the Senate where he will surely try do the same to parents and children across the country. This is a very dark sign that Trudeau intends to ramp up his transgender activism in the remaining time he has in office.

Anti-Christian Bigotry 

Wells is not just a transgender extremist. He’s an anti-Christian bigot, too.

He’s spent years trying to roll back the rights of Christian schools in Alberta — largely because they don’t agree with his transgenderism.

If it were any other religion he hated, he’d be immediately disqualified from public life. But Trudeau hates Christians, too, so Wells is a perfect fit.

Skirting Democracy 

There are other odious things here. As you may know, for decades Alberta has had elections to choose its own senators — as opposed to just accepting the personal friends of the prime minister.

It’s an Alberta tradition to elect Senators. There are democratically elected senators-in-waiting in Alberta right now, and there are two Senate vacancies from Alberta.

But instead of appointing the winner of those legitimate elections, Trudeau just spat in their faces, and in the faces of the hundreds of thousands of Albertans who voted for the legitimate senators.

Alberta has been electing senators for decades — that’s how Senate reformer Bert Brown was appointed. Trudeau wants to erase that democratic tradition

Do you think for a moment that Albertans — or anyone — would have voted for this anti-Christian, anti-family, pro-trans extremist?

How To Fight Back?

We’ll be able to throw out Trudeau at the next election, but by putting this dangerous man in the Senate, he’ll be there for more than 20 years trying to poison our children.

And because Trudeau made the appointment on the long weekend, he’s hoping to get away with it.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , ,
Older Entries →