Read My Lips Stephane Dion: Women Are NOT Inferior

So, I understand that Stephane Dion wants to ensure that 1/3 of the Liberal candidates in the next election are women. Obviously he equates women MPs as some indicator of political equality in Canada.

This view is typically short-sighted of a Liberal. I would argue that because women have the right to vote, the right to participate in candidate selection, and the right to put their own name forward for nomination that they ARE indeed treated equal. Moreover, very little of what an MP does is gender-specific. Foreign policy, monetary policy, Inter-governmental affairs, Defense, etc. have no particular gender issues.

Jean Chretien tried this strategy in 1997. He decreed that a certain percentage of Liberal candidates were to be female (I think 25%) and he had to hand-pick candidates in some ridings to meet that goal. In doing so, he did an end-run around democracy by telling his party members in particular ridings who they needed to support. He parachuted Karen Redman in the Kitchener Centre riding and she won against a fractured Right and has won re-election ever since. But considering the incumbent advantage we CAN question if she ever deserved to be an MP in the first place. Ms. Redman may indeed deserve it but for her whole career I’ll wonder if she was the best person, well, Liberal for the job. And the fact that she was a Chretien lapdog didn’t help her credibility.

“Affirmative Action” is all around a bad idea. It IS a form of discrimination and not just against the able-bodied, heterosexual, white dude. It’s sexist in this case because it says ‘Women ARE inferior and need help to get elected’; it says ‘Women can’t compete in politics’.

I beg to differ. I don’t see that women are inferior or are at an inherent disadvantage. I don’t see that we need to prop them up. And I don’t think the electorate much cares about gender as a whole.

Case in point, I’m proud to say that in my riding Elizabeth Witmer represents me at Queen’s Park. And half of Waterloo City Council, including Mayor Brenda Halloran, is female.

Dion’s stand is insulting and cynical. He is pandering to the meek by using this non-issue to vote-grab. Anyone who votes Liberal because of this really has issues with priorities.

Why I Oppose Same-sex Marriage

For me, its not about rights or denying rights. Its about the Charter. Its about a slippery slope created by redefining a word. And its about parliamentarians abdicating their responsibility to permit the Electorate to drive social policy through them.

For decades (yes, under the Liberals) we’ve developed a culture whereby we expect the courts to essentially MAKE law by setting precedent. Then the legislative bodies, be they federal or provincial, have to make law to satisfy the new precedent.

The system is not supposed to work this way. Its supposed to go something like this. We (the Electorate) cast our ballots to elect members and parties who represent our values. Those representatives then go to Ottawa or Queen’s Park, or wherever and MAKE laws that express those values. And then the courts are supposed to simply interpret and apply those laws.

But when the courts, who are supposed to be independent of government and independent of the people, essentially create laws, they take the Electorate out of the equation. The courts now drive socially policy. That is a fact I am exceedingly uncomfortable with. Why do we still call our society a democracy? We are fooling ourselves if we do.

Now, about the Charter. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a tragically flawed document. It has noble intentions but is flawed. It is flawed because it can be used to support an argument in court for someone who has the audacity to say “My right to (whatever) supersedes your right to (whatever else).” Even if both rights can be interpreted as protected under the Charter; the one who whines wins.

Now, considering the tendency of Parliament to sit and wait for the courts to decide what it should do, can we really expect that they will have the strength or the inclination to intervene when a member of the Clergy is brought up on charges for infringing on the ‘rights’ of a same-sex couple when they demand to be married in a church and by that particular Clergy? This matter is all the more intractable given the perceived supremacy of the Charter. This will happen. Its only a matter of time. Indeed, people entrusted to perform secular marriages are already losing their jobs for refusing, on moral/religious grounds, to perform same-sex marriages.

I have a problem with the strategy of redefining the word ‘marriage’. Even France didn’t go so far. If it had been called a ‘civil union’, with all the same rights, privileges and duties as marriage, I would have been on-side. It would have been a whole lot cleaner to allow (not compel) clergy and secular bodies to perform either Marriages (between one man and one woman) or Civil Unions (between two people).

Another issue relates to the Charter and having taken the unnecessary step of redefining the word ‘marriage’. By doing so, we open the possibility of challenges, again argued under the Charter, for things like bigamy, polygamy, incest and such. Its only slightly less likely than the previous scenario. Its an unintended possibility not seen by those who did not have the foresight. Having to fight these challenges in court will be at the very least embarrassing. Imaging the headline; ‘Man challenges Canadian court to redefine marriage so he can marry his daughter’. And given how flawed the Charter is, these challenges could go either way. We’ve opened a Pandora’s box.

Democracy at work?

We don’t have Same-sex marriage in Canada because of any kind of groundswell of support by the people for the idea. I figure that the majority of voters in Canada either don’t care or oppose the idea. We have Same-sex marriage because of a few judges and three men in Ottawa. Jean Chretien and Gilles Duceppe, and Jack Layton whipped their members into voting as they were told. The Bloc and the NDP did it again yesterday, and the Liberals no doubt would have too if they thought it was needed. It was shamefully anti-democratic of the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP. The only party to uphold democracy was mine. Conservative members were free to vote as they felt compelled to. Only Conservative members were free to listen to their constituents. We have Same-sex marriage at the cost of democracy, not because of it.

Yes, it was a victory for supporters of Same-sex marriage. But it was a defeat for democracy.

And, may I remind the reader that the Liberal Party as of six years ago opposed Same-sex marriage. Why? And why the turn-about if not as a cynical ploy to get more votes? The Liberal Party is certainly not the champion of civil rights in Canada. They are masters of social engineering though, I give them that. To do a total 180 on this matter, create the ‘need’ and give us Same-sex marriage in three short years is pretty amazing.

Dion: A question of loyalty

I was shocked to learn yesterday that newly-elected leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Stephane Dion, is a dual-citizen.

What was not shocking at all was his inability to understand why he MUST renounce his French citizenship.

It boggles the mind how someone who hopes to be Prime Minister someday can think that it is appropriate for him to hold the citizenship of another country. The logic is so simple, so instinctive, that I don’t even know where to start to explain it.

I don’t care that he doesn’t vote in French elections and I don’t care that he doesn’t have French passport. The fact of the matter is that he can vote and he can get a passport; its there for the asking.

Dion’s intransigence on the matter smacks of the same tired Liberal arrogance that we’ve spent the past decades putting up with in Canada. But it should not surprise us. It is, after all, coming from the man who was the Environment Minister while the Liberals signed the Kyoto Accord and then did nothing to reduce so-called greenhouse gases. (That ‘Global Warming’ is a fallacy is a whole other matter) Dion was also the Intergovernmental Affairs Minister while ‘Adscam’ was in full swing.

Its clear to me that integrity, or even the appearance of it, is not high on Dion’s mind.

For the Fallen

Every year when I go to the Cenotaph in Kitchener the MC or someone else reads the fourth stanza of Laurence Binyon's 'For the Fallen'.

And every year those words have the effect on me that I am sure Binyon wanted to convey.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/poetsandprose/binyon.htm

Words cannot describe the gratitude I have for those who provided the peace and prosperity and freedoms I NEVER take for granted. What they provided allows me to worry about such relatively trivial things like the quality of education my children receive, how much tax I pay, and the state of the roads I drive on.

I will remember them.

Rebuttal to Andrew Telegdi, my MP.

Mr. Telegdi,

I received your ‘Fall 2006 Parliamentary Connections’ and feel I must respond.

You and I have been over the merits of the Long Gun Registry. To recap, I think it was a colossal waste of money meant to give an uninformed urban electorate the ‘warm-and-fuzzies’ with respect to safety. The vast amount of money spent on this ineffective programme could have been spent on other things to make us safer. More Police could have made the difference and kept Kimveer Gill from getting licensed, legal weapons in the first place.

The next thing you mention is the Kyoto Accord. This is something you and I have not discussed, and what I have to say on the matter may come as a shock. I have a degree in science, and open mind. In fact, I insist on having informed opinions. That puts me in a very small minority of people who have a chance of understanding the science on both sides of the Global Warming issue.

I can say, without a doubt that the concept of Global Warming is a fallacy. The Kyoto Accord would do nothing to fight what is most likely a natural phenomenon. There is no such thing as a normal climate. Climate has been changing since before man walked the Earth. And it will continue to change no matter what we do. I find the science supporting the notion wanting and I attribute its widespread acceptance to relentless propaganda and a public too lazy to educate themselves and too arrogant to admit they can’t understand the matter.

Please visit my blog to get more information on this issue. http://www.gargoylerants.blogspot.com/. I’ll be posting this rebuttal to my Blog too.

Also, if you have not already closed your mind on the matter of Global Warming, I’d invite you to check out http://www.friendsofscience.org/.

Daycare is also mentioned in your report. This is really the one that burns me Mr. Telegdi.

You mention that the Conservative Government scrapped ‘our provincial agreements for a national daycare program’ (I believe ‘program’ is the American spelling, by the way.)

Well, let me tell you how I see it.

In 1993 when the Liberals first promised a national daycare programme, my wife and I had no kids. In 1997, when our first child turned two we were promised it again. In 2000, our second child was two, and we were promised it yet again. And in 2004, when my third child turned three we were promised it for the fourth time. Of course you know as well as I that it was an empty promise each and every time.

Ironically, the programme that the Conservatives quickly brought in has provided some help. We have been receiving $100 a month to help subsidize Thomas’ half-day care at (his school's) Child Care Centre while he attends senior kindergarten. (Scott Reid’s comment implying that I am too dumb to spend the money on anything but beer and popcorn is a shining example of Liberal arrogance on this matter)

And, another important fact is that the ‘provincial agreements’ had no strings attached and no national standards were put in place. Under the agreements, the federal government would simply send money to the provinces and hope for the best. That was clearly insufficient, and abundantly irresponsible.

Next, you talk about our Government’s foreign policy.

Well, there are worse things than agreeing with Americans on some issues. In my book, lying and stealing and sloth are greater sins.

You decry Harper’s ‘unbalanced approach to the war in Lebanon’. I would call it a ‘principled approach’. One of the antagonists is a world-recognized terrorist organization ready to murder innocent civilians and hide amongst others. The other is a sovereign nation surrounded by intractable enemies while continually showing great restraint. It seems pretty clear to me what side a just and civilized nation must back.

Our mission in Afghanistan seems pretty clear to me. We must fight terrorism at its root. We have a choice. We can fight them there, or we can let them fester and fight them here. We are at the same time helping the Afghans to build their infrastructure. It is a Canadian tradition to fight against tyranny for justice and peace. Moreover, it is a Canadian tradition to do more than our share. I remind you, that your last Liberal Government sent them and that a large number of Liberal MPs supported the Government on the matter of extending the mission.

Sometimes peace needs to be made, before it can be kept.

I’ll tell you first that Remembrance Day is the most important (secular) day of the year. It has been for as long as I can remember. I respectfully disagree with you on the matter of the Flag on the Peace Tower. The tradition of not putting it at half-mast was put into place during the First World War, I believe. It was a wise policy because it removed any debate over what would constitute lowering it. If it should be lowered for one soldier, what should happen if four die? If it should be lowered for a soldier who falls in battle what about a soldier who does not? What about a soldier who was not in theatre? What about an on-duty Police officer? And then what if that Police officer was not on-duty? Then, what about Firefighters and Paramedics? On-duty or off? Where do you then draw the line? We don’t want to dishonour these other men and woman who put themselves in danger for us, do we? So then we will get to the point where the Flag is lowered more often than its not and the significance of the honour is diluted.

It was Mr. Chretien who lacked the wisdom to see this policy and, by setting a new precedent, ostensibly made the Conservatives look disrespectful.

No, lower the Flag on Remembrance Day and leave it at that. There is nothing at all preventing a citizen who has a flag from showing respect.

Moments of silence in the House of Commons, as you have pushed for is honourable and appropriate. I commend you on your push to have this practice adopted.

You mention the UN. Again, we clearly disagree. The UN does more harm than good. It holds the space of an International body for the purpose of fostering dialogue and peace, but lacks the will to use anything but strong language. It sat and wrung its hands and said ‘somebody should do something’ while campaigns of genocide went unchecked in Africa. And it told Saddam Hussain (four years ago today, as a matter of fact) that Iraq had better disarm or face ‘serious consequences’. Saddam knew the UN’s threat was empty.

The UN dithers, and people die.

The AIDS Conference

Mr. Harper, as a Conservative would not have been shown the respect due a head of state by the delegates of the AIDS conference. The Gay Rights faction of the AIDS conference was primed and ready to give Mr. Harper a welcome befitting their dissatisfaction with his policy on Gay Marriage, rather than on anything he had done or had not done with respect to AIDS.

Mr. Harper, in his wisdom sent the MP most qualified to be there. Namely Mr. Clement, the Health Minister. He was disrespected all the same just for being a Conservative. The AIDS Conference delegates should be ashamed. Their lack of class marginalized their endeavours.

You mention undocumented workers and imply that the Conservatives are bankrupt of ideas. We’ve discussed this before, you and I. I’ll ask you. What did the Liberals do in 13 years? I’d argue that nothing got done because it probably never even appeared on the radar.

You insult me by telling me that because I have a principled stand that in some cases may happen to parallel the US that I am somehow not independent in my thinking. That is rich coming from a Liberal. Six years ago a Liberal in good standing was against Gay Marriage. Now the party policy changed and you must be for it to be a Liberal in good standing. In short, Liberals are not allowed to disagree; to think for themselves or use their own principles to decide for themselves how they feel on an issue. And the NDP are even worse with party doctrine. Your party and the NDP are the parties for those who’d rather be sheep than put the effort into thinking for themselves.

Global Warming is a Fallacy

The pervasive concept of Global Warming is a fallacy. There is no such thing as a 'normal climate'. The only reason we are collectively panicked about it is because we are continuously fed doom and gloom stories (propaganda) from one side of the argument. There is just as much evidence (empirical AND anecdotal) refuting the concept. But what sells papers and ad time on newcasts? All one needs to do is look at previous 'Armageddon' scenarios (remember Global Cooling?) to see that.

Most people who 'believe' do so simply because they feel strongly about the environment, but can’t be bothered or lack scientific and statistical understanding to qualify their opinion with analysis. And the so-called scientists who still promote the idea have staked their reputations on disproved theories and have blinded themselves to the truth.

Consensus and relentless propaganda does not equal truth.

The Earth is not flat and the universe does not orbit the Earth but there was a time when stating that put one on the outside…

Shootings in Montreal Lead to More Debate on Gun Control

With the shootings at Dawson College in Montreal this week, the debate is cropping up yet again about gun control in general and the merit of the Long Gun Registry specifically.

The Conservatives are set to table legislation that will essentially gut the Long Gun Registry. That legislation may now be in jeopardy or put on hold due to the reactionary nature of MPs, not to mention their willingness to pander to public opinion no matter how misplaced. This is unfortunate.

Why ‘misplaced’? Well, those who support the Long Gun Registry seem to think that events of this nature prove that the Long Gun Registry is needed. But when you ask the question ‘What did the Long Gun Registry do in this case?’ no one can say it prevented the incident. I’m no expert on firearms and I don’t know which ones Kimveer Gill had and how the Long Gun Registry treated them. I have read somewhere that Gill used an AK-47. I am sure that the AK-47 was restricted before the Long Gun Registry was put in place.

Either way, it is clear that he should not have had registered firearms (long or otherwise) and, given his disposition he would not have been qualified to own registered firearms of any kind. So, it stands to reason that the firearm Gill had were illegal.

For too many short-sighted urbanites, the Long Gun Registry is gun registry in Canada. Most fail to understand that there has been a handgun registry in place since the 1930’s.

The Long Gun Registry does not make us any safer. The Long Gun Registry does not prevent crime. The Long Gun Registry does not stop the smuggling of handguns or long guns.

The Long Gun Registry is a useless $2B make-work project. The money could have saved lives if spent in almost any other Government department.

Liberal Opposition to Lumber Deal No More Than Partisan Politics

So, the Liberals are going to vote against a softwood lumber deal that has the support of lumber producers and the non-Conservative governments of the three biggest lumber-producing provinces. Surprise, surprise.

Is it mere partisan politics or is it unrepentant contempt for the electorate? Well, lets look at the sloppy thinking at play.

First, Dominic LeBlanc, the Liberal International Trade Critic suggests that a special aid package be put together to help the lumber industry adjust to the fallout from the deal. Wait a minute, the government is to put a programme in place that essentially would indicate some short-coming in the deal. Nice try.

LeBlanc then goes on to say that getting anything less than all of the tariffs paid would be a failure. This thinking goes a long way to explaining why the Liberals couldn’t negotiate a resolution to anything with the Americans. Is it ideal? No. But in any negotiation there is give and take.

The impasse was costing Canada’s economy each and every day yet LeBlanc and Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale both said that Canada should have waited for legal procedures to conclude. But that assumes that Canada had a iron-clad case and the means to recoup all damages. That’s a dubious assumption.

The most contemptuous implication comes from Goodale when he tells us that “it is obvious the Harper government has played hardball with Canadian softwood producers to get their support for the deal”. This implies that no one in their right mind would agree with a Conservative or a Conservative government. It’s a cheap shot and sadly typical. Its also a classic example of a more insidious facet of Liberalism in Canada. Here we see ‘truth’ to a Liberal audience delivered with vacuous statements.

Its clear to me that the Liberal position is nothing more than partisan politics aimed at covering its inability to resolve this issue while they formed the government. They gave the Americans no respect while they were in government and reaped what they sewed. I’ll go further to say that perhaps if they had had a civil relationship with the United States, this whole mess may have been avoided.

Our Mission in Afghanistan

Bill Carroll, a talk radio host from Toronto, (www.cfrb.com) appears on Global News most nights and comments briefly on one or two matters of interest. I find his comments insightful and direct. Every day, its a breath of fresh air to hear someone from Toronto talk who has such a grasp of logic.

His comment last night was in regards to the idea that Canada should cut and run from Afghanistan. He said that proponents of this idea are either political opportunists or cowards.

Bill Carroll is right.

Canada has traditions that have been forgotten by many. We fight for justice. We fight for peace. We do more than our share. We are not just peace keepers.

We do not cut and run. We do not negotiate with those who would threaten us. We do not coddle those who would gladly bring their tyranny and hatred and intolerance to our country.

Jack Layton suggests we do all that. Moreover, he suggests we act as peace keepers in this conflict as if we are somehow apart from all the conflict. I would argue that there is no peace to keep. And I would further argue that the only peace we can achieve with an enemy as intransigent as this is through annihilation. They will not stop with the expulsion of the West from Afghanistan. They will not stop with the destruction of the State of Israel either. They will stop when the West is annihilated. Its quite clearly us or them.

Jack Layton is wrong.

There is no appeasing an enemy who will always hate us for what we are, open, democratic, tolerant and generous. I cannot fathom how anyone can believe that fundamentalist Muslims want anything close to what we would consider peace. In there distorted view of Islam, peace is achieved when all who are not Muslim or will not convert are exterminated. These people (I talk of the fundamentalist Muslims, not Muslims as a whole) do not want dialogue but will gladly ‘chit chat’ with us while they plot against us.

Fact Finding?

I sent this to the MPs listed below after the three of them when on a 'fact-finding' junket to Lebanon. The trip was sponsored by the National Council on Canadian-Arab Relations, an organization with close ties to Syria and, by extension, Hezbollah.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj (Liberal) and Ms. Nash (NDP) were quoted saying a variety of statements that sounded to many, myself included, as sympathizing with and apologizing for Hezbollah. They even implied that refusing to negotiate with them indicated some misunderstanding or intransigence on our part.

CCd in my message were the leaders of the three main opposition parties, my MP Andrew Telegdi (Liberal), Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Foreign Affairs Minister, Peter MacKay.

I will edit this post if I hear from any of the recipients.

To:
Borys Wrzesnewskyj
Peggy Nash
Maria Moureni

I’ll start this letter by letting you know where I am coming from:

1/ I believe that a sovereign nation has the right to defend itself from terrorism
2/ I believe that a sovereign nation has the obligation to root out terrorism within its borders
3/ I believe that a sovereign nation has to be able to act autonomously (spare me the Bush-Harper rhetoric)
4/ The National Council on Canadian-Arab Relations has strong ties to Syria
5/ The National Council on Canadian-Arab Relations sponsored your visit and I believe it has no interest in giving you a balanced view
6/ The links between Iran and Syria and Lebanon and Hezbollah have been clearly established

Hezbollah attacked Israel from within Lebanese territory. So, that makes Israel ’s actions against Hezbollah justified (1) and it puts the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the Lebanese ‘government’ (2) for not rooting out Hezbollah. Clearly no one can call Lebanon a sovereign nation as they have no control over many parts of Lebanon . The Lebanese ‘government’ has allowed itself to be a vassal of Syria (3) and Syria allowed Hezbollah to exist and no doubt funds Hezbollah with help from Iran . Surely I’m not the first to fill you in on these details.

I understand that Mr. Wrzesnewskyj and Ms. Nash have called for the de-listing of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. I have to wonder just what happened to make you come to such a misguided and myopic conclusion.

You have allowed yourselves to be sucked in by a tried-and-true propaganda machine. You were shown some bombed-out buildings and asked only who’s bombs they were. You are too simple and foolish to even ask why.

You and I will likely agree that Lebanese civilians are paying the biggest price in this conflict. But we would disagree as to why. I’m sure you believe that Israel targets innocent civilians.

Lebanese civilians are used, most cowardly, by Hezbollah as human shields and then their corpses and destroyed homes are used as propaganda to fan the flames of hatred and intolerance. Where does it end? Well I don’t know that, but collaborating and negotiating with and apologizing for Hezbollah will only encourage them to continue to target Israeli civilians and then hide behind Lebanese civilians. There is nothing in their agenda that makes them a legitimate group. They are no more interested in peace than you are in war. Hezbollah is bent on the destruction of Israel and the murder of as many of its civilians as possible. If Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization, then the work ‘terrorist’ has no meaning. Hezbollah and groups like it, whether Islamic or otherwise are cancers on civilizations.

And you let them use you. The National Council on Canadian-Arab Relations used you to further their political agenda.

Israel is a sovereign nation that has showed admirable restraint over its 58-year existence against many intractable enemies.

You suggest we should afford ‘elected’ members of Hezbollah some dialogue. But I encourage you to look at 20th century history and see just how effective appeasement can be with enemies of peace. The British, led by Neville Chamberlain, tried to appease Hitler and the Americans tried to ignore the problem and in the end nearly 50 million died in WWII.

I am convinced that we need to take a stand against hate and tyranny (this time in the form of Islamifascism).

Do I want war? No, absolutely not. But history tells us that you pay a big price if you are willing to say to an intractable enemy ‘I want peace at any cost’.

Your willingness to look at only one side of the conflict shocks me. Your short-sightedness and ignorance disappoints me. Your willingness to collaborate and speak for terrorists disgusts me. That you are Canadian shames me.

I defy you to respond to my message.

Paul Suggitt
Waterloo, Ontario

Our troops in Afghanistan

I sent the following in an e-mail to Jack Layton and CC'd the other New Democtratic Party Members of Parliament. I also CC'd the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Peter MacKay.

Mr. Layton,

I’d like to talk to you about tradition, courage and hypocrisy.

I understand that you (and because of that, your party) want to debate our role in Afghanistan. No doubt this is an aim to getting our troops out of there. Here I talk to you about tradition. It is a Canadian tradition to fight against tyranny in support of peace, liberty and justice. Canada has demonstrated its resolve in the form of war against forces that threaten the peace, liberty and justice of others. Yes, Canadian Forces are not just peace keepers. We have the wherewithal to be peace makers too. Another Canadian tradition is to do far more than our share. I am proud of these traditions and, more importantly, so are those in our Canadian Forces. You disrespect them with your stand.

You don’t believe this is our fight too. You believe we should stay out. I can be thankful that you and your soft, short-sighted ilk are not in power. You would have us discard our traditions and take on new traditions of dithering and ignorance and betrayal and short-sightedness. Personally, I am glad of the opportunity to rebuild Canada’s stature on the world’s stage with this mission. The recklessness and stupidity of the previous Liberal governments eroded it. Your form of recklessness would have us fighting these terrorists on our soil instead of theirs.

And if you believe, as many people are being told to believe, that the US is an imperialistic war-mongering power (a concept to which I do not subscribe) would it not be a good idea to have a seat at the table when these kinds of actions are planned and implemented?

Those traditions I talked about came to be through the courage and sacrifice of previous, harder generations. I talk about those who fought in the World Wars and in Korea. This is the same courage demonstrated today by those brave men and women in uniform. Have you asked the soldiers in Afghanistan if they want to come home? Have you asked them if they believe in our mission there? I think you would be shamed by their answers. How can you make politics hoping to bring them home for their sake when they don’t want to? And how would letting down our allies help us? Shame on you for your cowardice and politicking Mr. Layton.

Next I talk about hypocrisy, specifically that displayed by the very same Liberals who, quite rightly, sent our troops to Afghanistan in the first place. No doubt your shameful behaviour seems more reasonable to you with these hypocrites in your corner.

You love to tell others that they are wrong. Now I tell you Sir, you are wrong. You would turn your back on those who fight for freedom? You would turn you back on those who crave it? Just what kind of Canadian are you?

If I had no use for you and your party before, I have even less now.

Shame on you.

Electoral Reform

I sent this to The Record.

I'm writing this in response to the two letters you published on 01FEB that called for electoral reform; specifically proportional representation.

I could not disagree more. Even when the Conservatives earned only 2 seats in 1993 but 'earned' far more I would not have supported such folly.

If we did as the proponents ask, we could say goodbye to majority governments. Moreover, in order to get anything at all done we would have to pander even more to fringe and special interest groups. These groups would then hold the country hostage while the responsibilities of the government would not be met.

What if you had to include environmental matters in a bill regarding child pornography to get the Green party to vote for it?

And this would only be the start. Instead of having three or four parties on your ballot you would have a dozen. We could then expect parties to crop up representing any and all single issues. Now imagine having to give concessions to the 'Gay and Lesbian Party' or the 'Christian Fundamentalist Party' to get support on a matter of foreign policy. Now imagine needing both of them to support you.

No, its better to have a few parties who, for the most part, cover the spectrum and have a well-rounded platform that touches all the responsibilities that a government has.

Hamas democratically elected?

What are we to think when a jurisdiction holds a democratic vote and elects a government that will not be satisfied with anything less than the total annihilation of its neighbour?

Such is the case in Palestine. I used the word ‘jurisdiction’ on purpose. Words like ‘nation’, ‘country’ and ‘civilization’ just seem inappropriate in this case.

Palestinian nationhood is a goal that seems even harder to achieve now that Hamas is to form a government. Or was it ever the goal?

So, why did Hamas win? Do Palestinians not want peace and prosperity for their children?

The culture of hate put forth by so many leaders including the candidate who ran for Hamas after having sent one of her teenaged boys to his death on a suicide attack is surely a factor.

Perhaps its my soft Western mind but I wonder how anyone can regard such an individual as anything but a terrorist.

It is right of all nations to condemn the new Palestinian ‘government’. Palestine does not belong in the company of sovereign nations. To recognize this ‘government’ is to condone terrorism.

The best that can come out of this is political pressure from the rest of the world who realize too late that Palestinian intransigence is the main stumbling block to peace. I don’t hold out a lot of hope on this front.

The irony is that the conditions that exist in Palestine, while not totally of their own design, are exacerbated by their own behaviour. There was a time not long ago that the two societies had a more symbiotic relationship. Thousands of Palestinians worked in Israel. Now, of course, those Palestinians are unemployed because Israel is exercising its right to protect itself. Now, the lack of opportunity and prosperity has turned Palestine into a terrorist hotbed.

While Israel may not have handled all situations perfectly during its existence (and what nation has?) we cannot fault its attempts to protect itself and we must applaud its willingness to negotiate in good faith and its desire to live in peace. We cannot expect Israel’s patience to be boundless.

If I seem one-sided its because I believe that Palestine and its leadership needs to bear the brunt of responsibility for the state it finds itself in.

Rosie O'Donnell Doesn't Like Conservatives

Rosie O’Donnell, at the Sundance Film Festival this week, was asked for her reaction to the results of our Federal Election here in Canada. I only caught a snippet on the news as the full content was to appear on ET Canada the following hour, but I got the gist of her reaction.

Rosie said that she was disappointed that we ousted the Liberals and then went on to lament the loss of some kind of gay haven where she could go and let her hair down.

My disappointment is in her comments multi-facetted.

I am Canadian. I voted Conservative. I voted Conservative for myriad reasons. And, I am not so daft as to focus on any one issue.

It seems her main concern, or perhaps only concern, regarding the election is the Conservative’s stand on gay marriage.

Like many liberals she seems to suffer from the tendency to over-simplify her thought process. If she knew anything about Canadian politics she might have known that the Liberals had long ago lost any moral authority to rule. Ottawa stinks with Liberal corruption. They were arrogant and lazy with power. They stole our money. They wasted our money on several projects. They spent $2B on registering long guns while (hand)gun crime rose alarmingly in our cities. They fostered the rise of the Separatists in Quebec through inaction and bungling. They soured relations with the US, our biggest ally and trading partner. They made the same old and tired promises in election campaigns in 1993, 1997, 2000, 2004 and 2006 and each time they won they failed to deliver. There are virtually no responsibilities they had that they didn’t entirely bungle.

The most disturbing is the implication that we did wrong by ousting the Liberals. Canada’s political landscape is complex. Its not all about how we treat gays and lesbians. Its not just about gay marriage.

Now, for the record, I oppose gay marriage. More specifically, I oppose the re-definition of ‘marriage’. I oppose it for two reasons. First, the laws we have in Canada provide the conditions whereby clergy will probably end up going to jail for refusing to marry gays and lesbians on the gounds of their religious beliefs. (For the sake of brevity I won’t get into the details of the failings and flaws of the “Charter of Rights and Freedoms”) Suffice it to say that a gay’s ‘right’ to get married will end up trumping another person’s right to practice their religion.

My second reason for opposing the re-definition has already reared its ugly head. The fact is, doing so has set a precedent. People who support the ideas of polygamy, bigamy, incest and bestiality, while clearly on the fringes of society, will be encouraged by the idea that ‘marriage’ can be changed at any time to fit their beliefs. Now, I DO NOT compare gay and lesbian relationships to polygamy, etc. and I am sure that gays and lesbians do not want to have to debate those matters any more than the rest of society. But when you are convinced to re-draw a line, you will likely be forced to re-draw it again and again. It’s a slippery slope and quite frankly I don’t want people around the world laughing at us when the Supreme Court has to hear some case and decide one’s right to marry his horse or his daughter, or have a harem.

I am a libertarian at heart. I am fine with allowing couples (two people) entering into a 'civil union' with all the same rights and privileges and responsibilities as marriage. But I want it in law that NO ONE will be forced to perform these unions. I want safe-guards such that my rights won’t get trampled by those of others. The Charter fails here.

My second cause for disappointment is the notion that before voting Conservative, I was to consider what kind of gay refuge for foreigners that I might be destroying.

As in most countries our politics is not about one single issue. I find that too many people are ‘single-issue’ people. Environmental zealots care only about a party’s stand on environmental issues and gays and lesbians are often single-issue people such that nothing (like fiscal policy, foreign policy, trade policy, tax policy, defence policy, etc.) seems to matter that doesn’t address or celebrate their sexuality. Other groups like union memberships and those who oppose all concepts of free trade suffer from the same kinds of self-centered myopia.

I find that conservatives tend to be big(ger) picture people.

I figured Rosie O’Donnell would be more broad-minded having traveled the world and having had the experience of hosting a talk show, but I see now that she is indeed a single-issue lesbian.
But its just like liberals, be they US Democrats or Canadian Liberal and NDP supporters, to disrespect the democratic will of the people for having the audacity to disagree with them.

Now, Canada is still going to be open. It will not become a Christian theocracy as some dim-witted people fear. Canada has a tradition of inclusion and freedom that dates back to when other nations employed slavery.

This is my country. I cast my informed vote based on my values in the way I thought was best for my country. I do not generally care if my vote offends the sensibilities of individuals who do not pay taxes here or care not to inform themselves. But I do care if they use their celebrity to tell me I’m wrong.